Communication Tools
Class Action Response
CLASS ACTION RESPONSE:
ONCE AGAIN, FEMA SHOWS WHAT NOT TO DO
ONCE AGAIN, FEMA SHOWS WHAT NOT TO DO
Hundreds of Gulf Coast trailer occupants displaced from their homes in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita are suing the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the manufacturers of their temporary housing units – accusing the federal government and its private contractors of providing hazardous dwellings that jeopardized their health.
In May of 2006, a Sierra Club study found that 83% of the FEMA trailers it tested contained levels of formaldehyde higher than the acceptable limit set by the Environmental Protection Agency. Many of those housed in the 102,000 trailers that FEMA purchased for $2.6 billion have complained of symptoms including burning eyes, headaches, coughing, skin rashes, nausea, nosebleeds, and sinus infections – all of which are associated with the dangers of formaldehyde exposure.
Today, the 25,162 Louisianans and 10,362 Mississippians who remain in FEMA trailers face homelessness or the possibility of sickness. FEMA’s inaction has reanimated memories of “You’re doing a heck of a job, Brownie” and inspired plaintiffs’ lawyers who understand how public missteps drive class action litigation. Perhaps the most damaging message that remains uppermost is that FEMA, astonishingly, has learned nothing from its past mistakes.
Alas, this regrettable situation – and the class action litigation it gave rise to – may have been avoided or at least ameliorated if FEMA and its private sector collaborators had responded in a timely and effective manner when the issue was first reported. For example:
Credible Commitment. FEMA never defined the problem, issued an apology, or even suggested ways to keep trailer occupants sheltered and safe. While woefully late, such actions can even now at least provide a tourniquet to stanch the flow of class action lawsuits waiting to be filed.
Practical, Visible Steps. Free hotel stays or other accommodations do not now seem so expensive compared to the litigation costs ahead. Providing healthcare services for anyone adversely affected in the FEMA trailers would send a powerful message that the agency takes responsibility for the situation and is fully committed to rectifying it. Those staple messages define just about any effective crisis communications initiative.
Alternative Villains. Has FEMA itself been victimized by any of its contractors? If so, the agency might do well not to hide that fact. It can begin to transform its public role by shifting blame to where it deserves to be and no longer passively agree to be the inevitable bad actor whenever the dire effects of a disaster are publicly recounted.
Lessons Learned. To move beyond a crisis, publicly demonstrate that the organization has learned from the mistakes made and will use that knowledge to prevent future mishaps. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is now studying the building materials that allegedly led to formaldehyde exposure. Full disclosure of the findings will be a first step toward reestablishing public credibility.
Maximum Web Presence. The plaintiffs’ bar immediately took to the Internet when the story broke – launching Websites like toxicfematrailer.com to troll for potential clients and reinforce key messages. An optimized Website or blog – posted by FEMA or one of its corporate partners or, preferably, both – would have leveled the playing field, disseminating counter-messages and providing some measure of control.
In fact, by such actions, FEMA would have decreased the litigant pool and saved the taxpayers some of the cost of class action lawsuits that, right now, they are likely supporting in overwhelming numbers.
# # #
Related Articles: