Former Employee of AMD Sues; Claims Unsafe Working Conditions Causes Birth Defects

[zekrahminator]

While we frequently hear about Company X suing Company Y over some copyright infringement, rarely do we hear about a lawsuit that actually matters. Maria Ruiz, a former employee of AMD, worked at Fab 14 between 1988 and 2002. When she gave birth to her son, she was horrified to discover multiple birth defects. Now 16, her child (Ryan) was born missing his lower right arm, and suffers brain injury and lifelong cognitive deficits.

In the lawsuit, which was filed in the Travis County District Court in Texas, Maria Ruiz claims that she was frequently exposed to such toxic chemicals as ethylene glycol monethyl ether acetate and 2-ethoxyethyl acetate. Ruiz reported needing to receive prompt medical attention on at least two occasions, after unintentionally inhaling chemical fumes. Overall, the lawsuit claims that AMD "breached its safety warranty and neglected to provide employees with adequate protection against exposure to dangerous chemicals". The lawsuit also includes medical malpractice allegations against the clinic Maria Ruiz was treated at.

AMD had this to say about the lawsuit:

We take the health and safety of our employees very seriously. We have a long history of supporting independent research on health and safety in semiconductor manufacturing and are confident in our systems and procedures. Our thoughts go out to Ms. Ruiz and her family, but we do not believe there is any connection between Ms. Ruiz's employment with AMD and her son's medical conditions as alleged in this case.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[erocker]

Now, I've told my 3 legged cat not to be rubbin' around my computer! Wow, this sucks! I hope the woman and her child make millions if AMD is at fault.

 

[newconroer]

I imagine she wasn't working during maternity.....I hope not. If so, then that's her own fault.

If not, then they have to prove that whatever she was exposed to, was still in her system during her pregnancy AND did in fact cause a birth defect.

And guess who would most likely have to fit that bill? Ruiz. I hope they paid her well :0

 

[Richieb0y]

I imagine she wasn't working during maternity.....I hope not. If so, then that's her own fault.

If not, then they have to prove that whatever she was exposed to, was still in her system during her pregnancy AND did in fact cause a birth defect.

And guess who would most likely have to fit that bill? Ruiz. I hope they paid her well :0

in my country if ur pregnat u must work all the time and u only get 6 weeks before birth free

i hope she get money if its not her fault

 

[newtekie1]

[AMD is]...responsible for multiple birth defects in an Austin youth born with a missing lower right arm

Wait, I don't get it. He is supposed to have an upper and a lower right arm? How many right arms are we supposed to have?

 

[a111087]

Wait, I don't get it. He is supposed to have an upper and a lower right arm? How many right arms are we supposed to have?

I guess they mean palm and fingers...
I'm pretty sure AMD is guilty, but they don't have much to pay

 

[rhythmeister]

Wait, I don't get it. He is supposed to have an upper and a lower right arm? How many right arms are we supposed to have?

Do you not have an upper arm and lower arm at each side of your torso dude?

 

[Morgoth]

yea intel all the way

 

[a111087]

intel go intel go

lol, go where?
but seriously, that makes you wonder if AMD is worth buying

 

[TUngsten]

Do you not have an upper arm and lower arm at each side of your torso dude?

 

[WhiteLotus]

im sure AMD told their employees the health and safety precautions - i bet this women choose to ignore them and is now sueing, much like someone sue McDs for making them fat.

not that i think that this child is unlucky but sometimes the company is not totally at fault, i hope AMD win this case but still pay a small out of court good will package.

 

[Fleekar]

She's a Former employee, and her son is now 16 years old. Why sue so late? They were birth defects right?

 

[deekortiz3]

She's a Former employee, and her son is now 16 years old. Why sue so late? They were birth defects right?

Like a few people said... She needs to prove a lot of things to show that AMD is actually at fault. It could be that a doctor was now able to trace the problems back to those chemicals in some way.

 

[ChaoticBlankness]

Like a few people said... She needs to prove a lot of things to show that AMD is actually at fault. It could be that a doctor was now able to trace the problems back to those chemicals in some way.

Or, and this is the more likely cause as it's an American lawsuit, she just wants money because she feels her life sucks and AMD appears to be an "easy" target. Even if the birth defects were caused by chemicals at the FAB.. was she following proper safety protocols?

The article does state she unintentionally inhaled chemicals.. meaning she had an accident.

 

[WhiteLotus]

or shes running out of money and is wanting to make a quick buck, on the other hand her disabled son may have prevented her from doing this due to him needing 24/7 care.

 

[hat]

/frowns at his 5200+...

 

[L|NK|N]

16 years is an awful long time to decide to sue someone. Maybe it is a retaliatory attack....who knows. I really doubt that the working conditions are that bad. Even so, surely after 16 years, things at least have been improved, because I am sure the regulations have gotten stricter over certain things.

 

[PVTCaboose1337]

It seems the chemicals are the same used in antifreeze... oh bad.

 

[panchoman]

i dont think this is going to work. the factories and stuff have to be certified and stuff so yeah. i think its more like someone wants money 16 years later and is trying to use her son to file a lawsuit against her former employer for cash.

 

[3991vhtes]

She should of sued AMD when the kid was born, and why sue so late? IMO, it's a bunch of crap.

She shouldn't get any money for this, and if she does, I'm going intel.

 

[3991vhtes]

16 years is an awful long time to decide to sue someone. Maybe it is a retaliatory attack....who knows. I really doubt that the working conditions are that bad. Even so, surely after 16 years, things at least have been improved, because I am sure the regulations have gotten stricter over certain things.

i dont think this is going to work. the factories and stuff have to be certified and stuff so yeah. i think its more like someone wants money 16 years later and is trying to use her son to file a lawsuit against her former employer for cash.

I agree w/ both of you.

 

[panchoman]

nice sig 3991 lol. too many clubs?

 

[Polaris573]

My first job in my hometown was working at a convenience store. A lot of local factory workers would come by on their lunch break complaining about various symptoms due to noxious chemicals. When I asked about safety equipment I was told it was freely available but nobody bothered with it. I've also heard of similar practices in other local factories. This happens quite often. Workers are told the chemicals they work with may be dangerous. However, if they do not notice immediate symptoms, or if symptoms subside after they are no longer being exposed, warnings are often disregarded. As of late I've noticed that many people take a "guilty until proven innocent" approach with lawsuits involving large companies, I would just like to remind you the defendant is not always at fault.

 

[FatForester]

If she knows enough about the chemicals to know that they're toxic, then she knows enough to not work around them when pregnant. The only way I can see this being AMD's fault is that if they MADE her work and didn't give her maternity leave. All in all, that's pretty awful.. but just because that happened to her baby doesn't mean she should sue people about it.

 

[AphexDreamer]

A Simple Google Of the two chemicals and this is what you get

ETHYLENE GLYCOL MONOMETHYL ETHER
ACETATE
IV. Effects of Human Exposure
Developmental defects have been described in the offspring of a mother who was occupationally
exposed to EGMEA during pregnancy (Bolt and Golka, 1990). The mother was exposed during
pregnancy by skin absorption and inhalation for approximately 1-4 hours/day to 1-2 liters of
EGMEA. Her first child was born with congenital hypospadia, chordee, micropenis, and
scrotum bifida and her second child (3 years later) was born with chordee, cryptorchidism, penile
A - 68
Ethylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate
hypospadia and scrotum bifida. Both children had normal karyotypes. No estimates of exposure
were made.
A single case report described allergic dermatitis which may have developed from contact with
EGMEA (Jordan and Dahl, 1971). A 58-year-old woman developed dermatitis on the nose
possibly from contact with EGMEA on her eyeglasses. Ethylene glycol monoethyl ether acetate
(EGEEA) was also present.
http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/chronic_rels/pdf/110496.pdf

2-Ethoxyethyl acetate
NIOSH Immediately Dangerous To Life or Health Concentration (IDLH): 500 ppm

Potential symptoms: Irritation of eyes, nose; vomiting; kidney damage; headache, dizziness, drowsiness, paralysis, unconsciousness; in animals: reproductive, teratogenic effects; SKIN ABS; INGES ACUTE: Nausea, vomiting.

Health Effects: Irritation-Eyes, Nose, Throat, Skin---Mild (HE16); Cumulative Blood Disturbances (HE12) Reproductive hazards---Teratogenesis and other reproductive impairment (HE5).

Affected organs: Eyes, respiratory system, gastrointestinal tract; reproductive system, hematopoietic system.

http://www.osha.gov/dts/chemicalsampling/data/CH_239300.html