AMD sued by worker whose child has birth defects

A former AMD clean room worker has filed suit against the chipmaker in Texas, alleging that her exposure to dangerous chemicals while working in a chip fab resulted in her son Ryan's birth defects, including cognitive disabilities and an undeveloped right arm. Maria Ruiz worked for AMD from 1988 to 2002, and when she discovered she was pregnant, she approached both her doctors and AMD and was allegedly not warned of any risks she faced in the workplace. Maria is now claiming that her exposure to ethylene glycol monoethyl ether acetate and 2-ethoxyethyl acetate during her pregnancy caused Ryan's birth defects, and she's suing AMD and her doctors over their failure to keep her safe. According to her lawyers, Maria "did not realize that 'clean rooms' are designed to keep damaging dust particles from semiconductor wafers during manufacturing, not to protect men and women exposed to a spectrum of hazardous chemicals and fumes." The case is still in its very early stages, so none of the allegations have been proven and AMD hasn't formally responded yet, but either way we have nothing but sympathy for the Ruiz family.

[BDM @ Nov 9th 2007 7:49AM]

...yet another example of why we need a "loser pays" judicial system

[Harkonian @ Nov 11th 2007 11:38AM]

Yet another example of how parents refuse to take responsibility for their own actions anymore. My child shot someone? Let's blame it on violent games. My child is failing school? Let's blame it on the teachers. My child is morally corrupted? Let's blame it on internet porn. None of this could possibly have anything to do with parents, you know, not actually parenting.

In short, if you are pregnant, why work around hazardous chemicals?

[jlouis @ Nov 11th 2007 10:28AM]

Why, so the RIAA can get handicapped grandmothers and children to pay its legal bills, or have extra ammunition to force people to settle out of court.

Think of the implications! Corporations could sue anyone with impunity, because most people of average means (most /targets/, let's say) don't have the money to pay a lawyer good enough to win.

Good God, no. The current system is flawed, but still isn't a total failure.

What we need is a system that measures the income of the complainant against that of the defendant, and if the difference is greater than, say, $50,000 yearly, then the participant of greater income pays the legal fees. Put in an exemption or higher differential standard, of course, for corporation-on-corporation lawsuits. Done. So what if the poor sue the rich needlessly? It's better than the rich taking undue advantage those who can't defend themselves. Especially the RIAA, and especially any corporation who poisons people indiscriminately in the name of the market.

[-Tj- @ Nov 9th 2007 7:52AM]

Woah, hold on a second... This woman, who is apparently at least halfway intelligent if she was allowed to work in a clean room, didn't know that clean rooms are meant to keep the dust out? I find that very hard to believe.

[Chuckles McGee @ Nov 9th 2007 8:09AM]

Well, I'm pretty sure she knew that clean rooms keep the dust out, but she (like I) probably also assumed that the bunny suit/respirator filter getup would have minimized her exposure to toxic substances.

[-Tj- @ Nov 9th 2007 8:26AM]

Perhaps you may be right. I did jump to the conclusion that she was a clean room scientist, not a janitor or something similar. I am wondering what "... worked with hazardous chemicals that caused her son's devastating birth defects..." means though. I found that quote on several other news sites using the same text, so I'm assuming it's from some kind of written statement? Wish they'd be more clear.

My apologies if she is just an 'innocent bystander'-type in this situation.

[-Tj- @ Nov 9th 2007 8:28AM]

@Chuckles: I dunno, I don't think all clean rooms use respirators. I was always under the assumption that the suits were simply to keep dust from being formed from clothing, dead skin, hair, and stuff like that... I think I learned that from a movie? Not sure...

[riggs @ Nov 9th 2007 8:30AM]

what kind of stupidity is this shit? "oh she might be a janitor cause of her last name" you people are a bunch of ignorant morons

[-Tj- @ Nov 9th 2007 8:35AM]

You get a gold star! And a plus for good measure.

[bobartig @ Nov 9th 2007 1:01PM]

Most of the people working in clean rooms are basically a variant of factory worker. You work 12 hour rotating shifts monitoring and maintaining the fab line, making sure the fab is running smoothly. Anything that can bring the fab to a halt can cost several days worth of production.

I applied to work in a fairchild fab back in the day. The job description required nothing beyond a high school diploma and the ability to work 12 hour graveyard shifts for low pay.

[Iscariote @ Nov 9th 2007 3:26PM]

Huh? Chip fabs need unintelligent grunts too.

[Serengeti @ Nov 9th 2007 7:53AM]

"her exposure to ethylene glycol monoethyl ether acetate and 2-ethoxyethyl acetate during her pregnancy caused Ryan's birth defects"

You leave Ethyl out of this!! She's just the secretary for god sakes!!! Stop bringing up her name so much!!

[DickHardknocks @ Nov 9th 2007 8:02AM]

First of all PREGNANT WOMEN should never be working around ANY chemical used in cleaning, or ambient radiation.

Secondly, if she is suing AMD for causing her child's birth defects, WHEN are American parents going to sue CHINA (and other parts of ASIA) for selling us garbage for the past 25 years with lead paint? A kid in the news just got a taste of the DateRapedrug nibbling on a Chinese toy for God's Sake.

No wonder Autism is such a big deal nowadays.

[Alex Whiteside @ Nov 9th 2007 8:07AM]

Pregnant women should avoid soap and water? Eh?

[Mchacur @ Nov 9th 2007 8:11AM]

@DickHardknocks

So now the issue is ASIA, instead of all the AMERICAN companies that were the ultimate responsibles of selling you "garbage for the past 25 years"???

Moron

[HineyWipe @ Nov 9th 2007 9:27AM]

Moron indeed! American companies are the ones outsourcing to China to save a buck, and skimp on healthcare, and give bonuses to legal departments that protect them from killing their own workers.

[iczer2 @ Nov 9th 2007 10:12AM]

Ultimately, it is all our fault (i.e. the American *Consumers* )for the corporate behavior we see today. If most people were not out to get the absolute cheapest merchandise at any cost then perhaps companies might not have felt the pressure to outsource in order to stay competitive.

"I don't agree with that culture!", you say. Well, then as consumers we have the ability to change that. Vote with your wallet and buy products from companies that don't do the sort of things you hate to see. If you reward a certain corporate behavior by buying more from them, then their competitors will take notice.

Just remember that the next time you reach for the cheapest item on the shelf....

[Sam @ Nov 9th 2007 11:19AM]

Quick, lets blame everyone who isn't born in america! First this assumes she must be a janitor because she is hispanic, then goes on to blame china for our cheap ass american companies. I guess it is neat to know bill o'rielly visits engadget...

[bman @ Nov 9th 2007 1:12PM]

Actually he said MAYBE she was a janitor, which would explain why she wasn't aware of the hazardous nature of her work. And for you idiots complaining about that Asia comment: He was obviously being facetious! He's saying parents should learn how to raise their own kids/take care of their health rather than blaming everything on some corporation or other group. This overly-litigious society we live in is pathetic.

[Dave @ Nov 9th 2007 1:49PM]

Well, I've left a job after she made some racist remarks aimed squarely at me during a company meeting--but I would never sue for that. I just left. However, I can guarantee you that if my company put me or my family in danger, I'd sue, too. I don't see how you can call her lawsuit "overly-litigious" when her baby is now going to go through life gimped and stupid. This is exactly the sort of thing the legal system is for. You can't have a free society in a capitalist country if you're going to allow companies to make their own rules without consequence.

[Sean DL @ Nov 9th 2007 10:23PM]

It was an Australian kid and he didn't nibble the toy, he swallow the damn little ball.

[Alex Whiteside @ Nov 9th 2007 8:07AM]

It's worth noting that employees themselves are required to take "common sense" precautions to ensure their safety. If (as the article implies), she was aware of how hazardous the acetates were, but failed to take proper safety precautions because she assumed her anti-dust clothing would protect her, she puts herself in a precarious legal position.

[Jugomugo @ Nov 9th 2007 8:21AM]

I hope she loses, and then loses her job and is blacklisted.

[DickHardknocks @ Nov 9th 2007 9:23AM]

LOL

That's wrong.

[playerone @ Nov 9th 2007 10:23AM]

@Johnny Rotten I'd like to see what YOU would do if something happened and you suspected your work place, and you saw the chance to make quick cash at the same time.

[Avenging Disco Godfather @ Nov 9th 2007 8:25AM]

First, most people that work in the fab as technicians have an associates degree or a high school diploma. They know how to put a lot into a machine, hit the run button, then take the wafers off when it is finished. So don't assume that there is a lot of thinking going on there.

Second, a company like AMD tells people up front what is involved in working in a fab. Every employee needs to pass a HAZCOM training which deals with the dangerous chemicals and processes and lets them know the affects of exposure. Additionally, people are informed that they will not be allowed in the fab when they are pregnant. Generally, they are put in the cube farm for their shift where they will do menial tasks or play solitaire all day.

For her to say she did not know the risks is silly. She is just looking for someone with deep pockets to pay.

[Richard @ Nov 9th 2007 9:27AM]

"Additionally, people are informed that they will not be allowed in the fab when they are pregnant."

That being said, if she *did* inform her employer that she was pregnant, and said employer didn't remove her from the environment that was proven to be teratogenic, then AMD is most definitely liable.

My wife is a chemist for a pharmaceutical manufacturer, and when we got married, the very first thing her boss said to her was, "If you're thinking about starting a family, let me know right away so we can get you out of the lab."

If AMD was negligent in not removing her, then they deserve to pay for that child's care the rest of his life.

[zfurie @ Nov 9th 2007 8:26AM]

I want to work at AMD so I can also mutate with an opto-core heart and streaming processor upgrades to my brain and and HDMI ports under my armpits.

[GoodThings2Life @ Nov 9th 2007 8:34AM]

Bullshit... you don't work at a company for **14 YEARS** and not have a clue what kind of materials you're dealing with. If you do, you're either an idiot, lazy, inept at your job, or all of the above. Don't get me wrong, I feel bad for the son and the family, but please-- the DOCTORS didn't warn her either, so why isn't she suing them too (or was that fact conveniently left out of the article)? If you work somewhere for 14 years, you should at some point begin to observe the environment around you.

And if you say, "Well, people aren't always aware of the dangers of Chemical X. We only just discovered that Chemical W was a problem!" Absolutely right, so why would we fault anyone for using these things if no one knew the risks. You can advocate that considerably more extensive testing *should* be done on chemicals before public use, but many of these chemicals were, in fact, tested extensively before use (so obviously our testing ability is flawed, maybe we should blame the testers), and many of them are well known to have risks and that's why precautions are in place like HAZMAT suits. Of course, the real problem is that people assume precautions really mean end-all-be-all-preventatives. They're not. They help mitigate risks, not eliminate risks.

The bottom line is this-- if she honestly is a competent person but didn't realize there were risks with working with these materials, then chances are good that others in her environment didn't realize those risks either or extended safety protocols would have been in place. That is not the fault of anyone. The whole point of discovery is that we often realize things the hard way, and we're supposed to be responsible and learn from that so that it doesn't happen again, NOT beat a dead horse for running like a mule.

Now that said, if she was truly a competent employee and this was a legitimate accident from the company and her not knowing the risks, then I think AMD should reward her 14 year service to the company by providing her son extended medical insurance for care with an understanding that above mentioned extended safety protocols will be in effect moving forward. And, of course, she should accept that by dropping her frivolous lawsuit.

[Tim @ Nov 9th 2007 9:00AM]

"and she's suing AMD and her doctors over their failure to keep her safe"

She is suing her doctors.

That's all I have to say about that.

[jasenj1 @ Nov 9th 2007 9:13AM]

"when she discovered she was pregnant, she approached both her doctors and AMD and was allegedly not warned of any risks she faced in the workplace"

Maria: "I'm pregnant; should I stop working in the clean room?"

Doctor: "Nah, you'll be fine. $20 co-pay, please."

AMD: "Get back to work!"

She apparently informed both her doctor and AMD. Both of those entitities have a responsibility for her health and well-being. She obviously had some knowledge that working in the clean room, might be, or probably was, bad for her baby; but when she asked the appropriate authority figures (doctor and employer) they told her to keep working.

I hope the doctor has his malpractice insurance paid up, and AMD has a few million around to make this go away.

[Serengeti @ Nov 9th 2007 9:02AM]

"The bottom line is this-- if she honestly is a competent person but didn't realize there were risks with working with these materials"

Another case of needing to read the article... She asked if there was any danger, and was told by not only the company, but a doctor, that there was no danger.

At that point, if she still remained skeptical, she could have quit... but I suspect she enjoyed employment, and benefits, and mat leave enough that she took their word for it.

Wouldn't you?

[elmer @ Nov 9th 2007 9:26AM]

Exactly!

From a legal standpoint, so long as she did follow AMD's operation rules as per usual (as in she didn't takes swigs of the stuff), because she asked and they apparently advised, the responsibility lies with them regardless of how much she knew about the dangers. It doesn't matter if she thought they might be dangerous (and she did because she bothered asking), because they told her it was safe (or so it's alleged).

Also, while clean room safety procedures are hopefully in place and standard now, bear in mind that this pregnancy occurred in 1988, when AMD was much smaller and potentially more lax. For all I know at the time she could have just started working there, and so not being sure about the dangers is quite reasonable.

[Richard @ Nov 9th 2007 9:34AM]

"The bottom line is this-- if she honestly is a competent person but didn't realize there were risks with working with these materials, then chances are good that others in her environment didn't realize those risks either or extended safety protocols would have been in place. That is not the fault of anyone."

You're dead wrong.
The bottom line is that the rules are WAAAAAY different for pregnant women, due to the fact that there are literally thousands of chemicals that may be safe to adults in small doses but are teratogenic.

The problem here seems to be a failure in AMD's corporate policies when it comes to pregnant females working in an environment that exposes them to ANY type of chemical.

Any company with HALF a brain will take a pregnant woman out of that environment immediately and stick them behind a desk until after they've had the child. This clearly didn't happen. And if the allegations are true, they should be paying out the nose.

[Hollywood Ron @ Nov 9th 2007 11:05AM]

Great post. We can't say for sure what caused the birth defects in her child. Might've been the clean room. Maybe she smokes 3 packs a day and mainlines bourbon in her off hours.

[GoodThings2Life @ Nov 9th 2007 8:38AM]

@Avenging Disco Godfather (and others):

You don't work somewhere for 14 years and not be expected to have some kind of higher education than a high school diploma.

[Ike Skelton @ Nov 9th 2007 8:47AM]

Uhhhh, what?

[Wil @ Nov 9th 2007 9:05AM]

Actually, I work for a semiconductor manufacturer and can tell you that fab workers don't necessarily have to have anything more than a high school diploma. Also, "fab worker" isn't one size fits all - there are different positions such as material handler, loader, etc. Fab workers are normally trained on a particular position and as time goes on are trained to be able to cover more positions. After 14 years, she probably had been trained on nearly every position in the fab but wasn't a Doctor of Fabology or anything like that.

Also, in CA the entire facility (not just the fabs) has signs posted stating the chemicals present can cause cancer, birth defects, etc. Not sure about TX.

[Jon @ Nov 9th 2007 9:15AM]

I worked for a semiconductor company for 9years in a cleanroom. Most of the operators, not the process analysts or engineers, didn't have a degree and were hired off the street. We were of course aware of all the chemicals used. They basically explained the names of the chemicals and what would happen if it got on your skin or if you swallowed it. As far I know there were no studies on long term effects of simply breathing in the fumes from the chemicals. I imagine that was a risk we were all willing to take. You can't tell me that no damage would be cause by igesting toxic fumes 12 hours a day. There were chemicals that had a very pugnant smell, such as photoresist in the photolithography area. Glad I didnt work in that area beacause the smell would hit you like a punch!Our bunny suits had no respirators, just a simple mesh mask. The only people who had respirators were the ones who had asthma etc. When someone got pregnant, they would not be allowed to work in the room until after the pregnancy so what does that tell us? Makes me wonder if they don't mind screwing with our system but don't wanna pass it on to our children. So, until there is long term evidence pertaining to the ingestion of chemicals, I guess they'll just say....nah you'll be alright. (reminds me of....smoking doesnt give ya cancer! lol)

[Colin B @ Nov 9th 2007 9:41AM]

Hey, I just wanted to throw my hat in the ring...I work in Austin and this is a result of one those seefy law firms finding a new angle with which to entice people into a huge frivolous lawsuit. The firm in question has been advertising on the radio heavily with statements like: "Does your child have birth defects? Have you, or someone in your family worked in a clean room in Austin in the past 10 years? If so, you may be entitled to extensive damages as compensation etc. etc. etc..." I first heard the commercial and laughed it off as a desperate attempt by a struggling law firm to try a new angle and get back in court...but now I am amazed someone actually bit and is going through with it. A sad example that our court system is broken.

[Andrew @ Nov 9th 2007 6:20PM]

I've heard these commercials on the radio in Austin as well. Despite the merits of her case, some law firm is trying to get a big payout here. It's like the Mesothelioma thing.

[Brian @ Nov 9th 2007 10:16AM]

So is there any reason to believe that ethylene glycol monoethyl ether acetate and 2-ethoxyethyl acetate have anything at all to do with birth defects? Or is this just a case of the Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy?

[Philly Stein @ Nov 9th 2007 10:51AM]

Bingo! I've worked in fabs world wide and have seen plenty of pregnant women working if the fabs. Wonder how their kids turned out? I don't think this is quite on the level of Nuclear Plant workers and family members all getting cancer... these accusations have been made before, but no one seems to have any solid proof of Fabs causing birth defects...

[Brian Lindenau @ Nov 9th 2007 2:35PM]

Actually, it does. It's in the MSDS. By the way the two chemicals cited here are the same thing. It was a common solvent used in photoresists in the 90's. The industry moved away from this solvent BECAUSE of the harmful effects of the chemical for prolonged exposures (most notably birth defects).

I am a Lithography Engineer, and anyone who works around these tools or works on them would be exposed to solvent vapors. A cleanroom suit has ZERO protection against any chemicals used in semiconductor manufacturing.

[Brian @ Nov 9th 2007 2:39PM]

See now i'm learning something useful. Perhaps she does have a legitimate case.

[Ike Skelton @ Nov 9th 2007 10:17AM]

Really? You don't think she told her employer she was pregnant, or ever saw a doctor about her pregnancy? Who knows who this lady is, but she seems to be somewhat civilized as she held a steady job for a number of years. I would guess her employer and a doctor knew she was pregnant. She should have had enough common sense to stay away from chemicals when she was pregnant though. I don't know what those chemicals are, and if I can't even pronounce them, I'm sure as hell keeping my wife away from them if she was pregnant.

[MikeTV @ Nov 9th 2007 10:39AM]

16 YEARS AGO!!!! This baby was not born recently, to shocked parents. This kid is 16 years old already. IMHO 16 Years is FAR FAR FAR too long to wait to file something like this unless your are just looking to cash in and looking for an excuse. Now that employee records may or may not be around and those involved probably don't remember everything said at the time.

[Othello @ Nov 9th 2007 10:56AM]

2002 is 16 years ago?

[Dauthi @ Nov 9th 2007 11:26AM]

"The youth is Ryan Ruiz who turned 16 on Oct. 31. His mother, Maria Ruiz, worked in AMD's Fab 14 clean room from 1988 to 2002, according to a statement issued on behalf of attorney's working on behalf of the Ruiz family."

From another information source. Easily found by searching for "maria ruiz amd" in Google. Before making snarky comments based off a blog snippet, you might want to investigate the claims so you know that you're RIGHT and not just annoying.

[Holden @ Nov 9th 2007 11:28AM]

As a Labor and Delivery nurse, we can be sued for 21 years after the birth for prenatal injury. The chemicals named are indeed teratogenic (known to cause birth defects). The fetus is very vulnerable.

I know of a lady that enjoyed camping along a certain river in Illinois, 8 months later she delivered a severely deformed child. Lo and behold there were MANY babies born with deformities, and miscarriages in that period of time. Turns out a company way upriver had been dumping chemicals at night into the river. Anyone ingesting that water and possibly eating the fish they caught was at risk. True story.