A Pennsylvania utility pole worker’s lawsuit against Verizon for not disposing of lead-sheathed cables was tossed by a federal judge for lack of standing on Friday. Yesterday, Verizon, relying upon that opinion, asked a New Jersey judge to dispose of a similar lawsuit brought by the same attorneys.
On Friday, a federal judge in Pennsylvania dismissed a proposed class action lawsuit against Verizon Communications Inc., ruling that the plaintiff, former utility pole worker Mark Tiger, lacked standing to sue in federal court. The lawsuit alleged that Verizon’s failure to properly dispose of lead-sheathed telecommunications cables endangered utility pole workers who were regularly exposed to them. View the court’s opinion.
Yesterday, Verizon filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority in Bostard v. Verizon, arguing that the dismissal in Tiger v. Verizon should apply to the New Jersey case as well. Verizon’s attorneys highlighted the identical legal deficiencies in both cases, noting that the plaintiffs in Bostard also failed to allege elevated lead levels in their bodies and their claims of economic injury from medical testing do not meet enforceable standards, stating that the risk of future exposure is speculative and insufficient to establish standing.
As reported by Wireless Estimator in September 2023, Greg Bostard, a former Comcast worker, sued Verizon over lead exposure from telecommunications cables. His complaint, which was filed by the same legal team representing Tiger, mirrors the allegations in the Pennsylvania case.
In the February 7, 2025 decision, Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan of the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania found that Tiger had not sufficiently demonstrated a concrete and imminent injury, a requirement for Article III standing under the U.S. Constitution. The judge dismissed all claims without prejudice, allowing for the possibility that Tiger could refile his case in state court.
Background of the case
Tiger, who worked as a utility pole worker from 2019 to 2024, claimed that he regularly came into contact with Verizon’s lead-sheathed cables while employed by Figure 8 Communications and Duda Cable Construction.
He alleged that he ingested and inhaled lead particles from these cables, leading to symptoms such as headaches, nausea, fatigue, irritability, and muscle and joint pain. However, since Tiger never sought medical attention, he lacked medical documentation to confirm lead-related illness.
In his 2023 lawsuit, Tiger sought to represent all utility pole workers in Pennsylvania who were exposed to Verizon’s cables. The complaint asserted claims for negligence, negligence per se, and public nuisance and requested class certification, a court-supervised medical monitoring program, and removal of Verizon’s lead-sheathed cables.
Verizon filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Tiger lacked standing, failed to demonstrate actual harm, and that his claims were untimely. The company also noted that since Tiger had left his job as a utility pole worker, his request for injunctive relief was moot.
Court’s rationale for dismissal
Judge Ranjan’s decision focused on whether Tiger had suffered an actual or imminent injury. The court concluded:
- Exposure to lead alone does not constitute an injury: Tiger failed to provide medical evidence showing that he had elevated lead levels in his body or had developed a lead-related illness.
- Common symptoms are not sufficient for standing: Tiger’s symptoms, such as fatigue and headaches, could be linked to numerous other causes and were not necessarily indicative of lead poisoning.
- Medical monitoring does not establish standing: The judge ruled that a need for future medical testing does not qualify as a present economic injury under Article III.
The ruling said future lead exposure is speculative since Tiger had left his job and there was no imminent threat of continued exposure to lead.
