On Dec. 10, 2024, the Ohio Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Sherwin-Williams’ insurers need not cover the company’s share of a $305 million lead-paint settlement. The court said the more than $100 million paid by Sherwin-Williams addressed future abatement, not covered damages for past personal injury or property damage.
The Cleveland-based paint giant’s portion of a $305 million settlement, which came after a California judge’s order that it help address problems associated with lead paint, was for “future harm,” and not for compensation of past problems, the justices said in a unanimous ruling.
The second case that matters most was filed there in 1999, before the Rhode Island case, and it lasted far longer, finally coming to a close in 2018. It went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, and it ended with a finding against Sherwin-Williams and others that stands as the clearest official judgment on the industry’s responsibility.
We’ll start with Rhode Island, the first case that brought a mammoth verdict against the paint companies. The state’s attorney general filed the lawsuit in 1999 against paint companies including Sherwin-Williams and others in the lead industry. Normally when a product harms someone, a product liability lawsuit is the avenue in court. But Rhode Island’s statute of limitations on such a lawsuit had expired, and the attorney general lacked some of the basic evidence needed to prove a claim. Namely, the state could not definitively say which paint was on the walls of homes where people were harmed.
Cleveland.com’s editor said Sherwin-Williams barred the outlet’s photographers from its ceremonial ribbon-cutting for the company’s $750 million downtown headquarters and offered company-approved photos instead. The outlet declined coverage, citing editorial independence and photo rights. The editor also alleged Sherwin-Williams’ lead paint caused lasting harm to Cleveland children, while noting the company had largely avoided liability.
Also, let’s face it, Sherwin Williams is always on the edge of public relations nightmares in Cleveland, where generations of children have suffered brain damage because of the lead paint the company sold for decades. Yes, the company has largely avoided liability, but there’s no denying that the company’s products have done – and continue to do – long-term damage here. Countless children have been denied fruitful lives because of the Sherwin Williams-produced toxins in their homes.
I guarantee our photographers would have taken better pictures than this and the others that Sherwin Williams handed out following its ceremonial ribbon cutting after refusing to let our photographers attend.Sherwin Williams handout photo
Sherwin Williams staged a ceremonial ribbon-cutting for its $750 million downtown Cleveland headquarters Monday, and we didn’t cover it.
Sherwin-Williams said it would suspend its 100% match on the first 6% of eligible 401(k) contributions effective October 1, 2025, citing weak demand, inflation, mortgage rates and tariff-related costs. CEO Heidi Petz said the suspension was temporary but gave no restoration date. The company also mandated that U.S. and Canadian workers return to the office five days a week starting January 1.
In July, the company mandated that all workers in the U.S. and Canada return to in-person work five days a week starting Jan. 1 -- a shift from remote and hybrid work that was allowed during and after the pandemic.
CLEVELAND, Ohio -- Sherwin-Williams announced plans to temporarily suspend the company’s matching contributions to employee 401(k) plans, citing weak sales amid economic and tariff headwinds.
Effective Oct. 1, the Cleveland company says, it will suspend employee 401(k) matching, citing sluggish economic conditions, particularly tariffs. As a result, employees will no longer receive a 100% match on the first 6% of their eligible compensation.
Sherwin-Williams workers have no choice but to make the commute to the downtown headquarters five days a week, instead of working in a hybrid model. The company guaranteed wage taxes to Cleveland in return for subsidies negotiated before COVID upended the workplace.David Petkiewicz, cleveland.com
The EPA said Sherwin-Williams, doing business as Engineered Polymer Solutions, agreed to pay a $306,436 civil penalty and return its Commerce, California, facility to compliance. The agency cited improper hazardous-waste identification, failures involving air-emission standards and containment, missed inspections, and inadequate waste-treatment determinations.
Today, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a settlement with the Sherwin-Williams Company (doing business as Engineered Polymer Solutions) to resolve claims of violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) at the company’s manufacturing facility in Commerce, California. The settlement requires the facility to pay a civil penalty of $306,436 and return to compliance.
A Cleveland.com commentary says dozens of governments, including cities and California regions, sued paint companies and the lead industry from the 1990s onward, and that nearly all the cases failed. It identifies lawsuits in Rhode Island and California as instructive examples but provides no details of their outcomes in the supplied passage.
Starting in the 1990s and running all the way to today, dozens of governments sued the paint companies and the lead industry. Cities throughout New Jersey, New York City, Philadelphia, Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Louis, 10 regions in California and a bunch of municipalities in Ohio.
The Human Rights Campaign scorecard lists Sherwin-Williams with 15 of 25 points for “Inclusive Culture” and 20 of 20 points overall in that section, with “No Penalty” noted. It also shows 5 of 5 points and 50 of 50 points for another scorecard category, whose name is not included in the supplied evidence.
A proposed third modification to a 2019 consent decree would require Sherwin-Williams to carry out EPA’s groundwater remedy at the Sherwin-Williams/Hilliards Creek site in New Jersey. The Justice Department lodged the proposal on September 24, 2026, and opened a 30-day public-comment period after its October 1 publication. Separately, EPA said a 2017 agreement requires the company to fund an estimated $14 million cleanup at the Route 561 Dump.
The Decree also provides that, after EPA selects a remedy in a Record of Decision (“ROD”) for an additional operable unit (“OU”) at any of the Sites, the Decree may be modified to add Sherwin-Williams' performance of the newly selected OU remedy to the work required under the Decree. In September 2025, EPA issued a ROD for an OU remedy that addresses groundwater at the Sherwin-Williams/Hilliards Creek Site (“SW/HC OU3 remedy”). This remedy provides for in-situ treatment of deep groundwater at the former manufacturing plant area at the SW/HC Site with chemical oxidation, chemical reduction, or sequestration and enhanced bioremediation. The proposed third modification lodged with the Court on September 24, 2026, provides for Sherwin-Williams' performance of the SW/HC OU3 remedy.
On March 28, 2017, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Sherwin-Williams Company entered into an agreement to clean up lead and arsenic contaminated soil and sediment at the Route 561 Dump site in Gibbsboro, N.J. The site is near a former paint manufacturing plant and was used as a paint waste dump. The Route 561 Dump site includes businesses, a vacant lot, White Sand Branch creek, and wetlands. Sherwin-Williams will pay an estimated $14 million to clean up the site, and pay EPA’s expenses in overseeing the work.
A July 13, 2026 Cleveland.com opinion piece says the paint industry, under pressure from doctors and governments, fought proposed lead-paint rules in 1955 and adopted a voluntary 1% residential-paint limit. It says the U.S. government did not prohibit lead paint until 1978; the passage does not specifically identify Sherwin-Williams as an actor.
In 1955, with overwhelming pressure from doctors, governments and others, the paint industry fought off government efforts at lead paint rules by adopting a voluntary standard. They agreed to limit lead content in residential paint to 1 percent.
After an Aug. 7, 2023, explosion at Sherwin-Williams’ Garland, Texas, plant, OSHA cited the company for nine violations, including missed equipment inspections and overdue operator refresher training. OSHA records show a serious training citation was informally settled at $9,678.60 and a repeat inspection citation at $96,786; Dallas News reported OSHA’s investigation was complete while the case remained open.
29 CFR 1910.119(g)(2): Refresher training was not provided at least every three years to each employee involved in operating a process to assure that the employee understands and adheres to the current operating procedures of the process: a) On or about August 7, 2023, and at times prior, at the Sherwin-Williams facility located in Garland, Texas, the employer did not provide operator refresher training at least every three years or more often, if necessary. This condition exposed employees to struck-by hazards.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is fining Cleveland-based Sherwin-Williams more than $290,000 for safety violations at the paint giant's Garland plant where an explosion occurred in August.
29 CFR 1910.119(j)(4)(i): The employer did not perform inspection and tests on process equipment: (a) On August 7, 2023, and at times prior, at the Sherwin-Williams facility in Garland, Texas, the employer did not inspect the 1/2"-150 psig process piping from vessel CAT-5 to reactor R-5 (b) On August 7, 2023, and at times prior, at the Sherwin-Williams facility in Garland, Texas, the employer did not inspect the 3"-150 psig process piping from reactor R5 to Tank TD-4 (RI-103-CI-3-N). (c) On August 7, 2023, and at times prior, at the Sherwin-Williams facility in Garland, Texas, the employer did not inspect the 3"-150 psig process piping from reactor R5 to Tank TD-5 (RI-101-CI-3-N) (d) On August 7, 2023, and at times prior, at the Sherwin-Williams facility in Garland, Texas, the employer did not inspect the process piping from vessel WT-5B to reactor R5. (e) On August 7, 2023, and at times prior, at the Sherwin-Williams facility located in Garland, Texas, the employer did inspect the process piping from the PM Acetate tank to WT-5B These conditions exposed employees to struck-by hazards. The Sherwin-Williams Company was previously cited for a Serious violation of this occupational safety and health standard or its equivalent standard 1910.119(j)(4)(i), which was contained in OSHA inspection number 1572722, Citation Number 1, Item number 5, and was affirmed as a final order on July 7, 2022, with a final abatement date on July 8, 2022, with respect to a workplace located at 301 Plant Road Ennis, Texas 75119.
Sherwin-Williams agreed to pay $16 million to settle claims that it joined a price-fixing conspiracy among automotive refinishing paint manufacturers. A federal judge granted preliminary approval of the settlement, part of a combined $39 million deal with PPG Industries that brought total recovery in the class action to more than $105 million.
The final two defendants in a class action antitrust suit against the top manufacturers of automotive refinishing paint have agreed to pay $39 million to settle claims that they participated in a price-fixing conspiracy, bringing the total recovery in the case to more than $105 million. U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick granted preliminary approval of the two settlements -- $16 million from Sherwin-Williams Co. and $23 million from PPG Industries -- clearing the way for notices to be sent to the class.
On March 2, 2023, the U.S. Attorney’s Office announced Sherwin-Williams agreed to pay $1 million to resolve allegations it knowingly helped a contractor evade disadvantaged-business participation rules on Philadelphia’s Platt Bridge project. The government alleged Sherwin-Williams supplied materials while a certified business acted as a pass-through. The settlement resolved claims only; civil liability was not determined.
According to the government, Sherwin-Williams’ liability as a third-party supplier arises from its knowing complicity with the fraudulent scheme. The government contends that Sherwin-Williams maintained the ordered supplies in storage and delivered them directly to Hercules-Vimas’s job site, then submitted invoices for payment of paint and supplies to Vertech, with knowledge and intent that Vertech would, in turn, create invoices on Vertech’s letterhead, adding a 1.75% mark-up (representing Vertech’s profit) and submit those invoices to Hercules-Vimas for payment. This scheme, the government believes, enabled Hercules-Vimas to submit a substantially lower bid than competing bidders on the Platt Bridge Project because, unlike Hercules-Vimas’s bid, competing bids included the reasonable market value for commercially useful functions performed by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises.
Pennsylvania’s environmental department found air-pollution violations at Sherwin-Williams’ Rochester plant and imposed a $124,700 civil penalty under a consent order. The order followed reports of chemical odors and addresses failures involving an oxidizer, permits, monitoring and testing. The company said it would install the oxidizer by October 2026; the order sets additional daily fines for missed deadlines.
Sherwin-Williams never installed the oxidizer, which then led to months of harmful chemicals being released from the Rochester plant.
A California federal judge gave initial approval to a $3.65 million settlement of claims that Sherwin-Williams failed to pay overtime and provide required breaks to 5,700 California store managers and sales associates. The May 13, 2020 report said the judge reduced the lead plaintiffs’ awards as excessive; it did not describe final approval.
By Hannah Albarazi ( May 13, 2020, 6:12 PM EDT) -- A California federal judge gave his initial nod to a $3.65 million settlement resolving claims that Sherwin-Williams neglected to pay 5,700 California store managers and sales associates overtime wages and didn't provide required breaks, but the judge trimmed the lead plaintiffs' "excessive" awards....
OpenSecrets records show Sherwin-Williams spent $1.15 million on lobbying in 2024, up from $890,000 in 2023. It also reports that 15 of the company’s 17 lobbyists in 2024—88.24%—had previously held government jobs.
ProPublica’s 527 Explorer records a $25,000 contribution from The Sherwin-Williams Company to the Democratic Governors Association on June 30, 2022. The evidence also lists later contributions by Sherwin-Williams to both Democratic and Republican groups.
$25,000 from The Sherwin-Williams Company to Democratic Governors Association on June 30, 2022
OpenSecrets lists $890,000 in Sherwin-Williams Co lobbying for 2023. It also reports that 14 of the company’s 15 lobbyists that year had previously held government jobs; the supplied evidence gives no further detail about the spending or those roles.
14 out of 15 Sherwin-Williams Co lobbyists in 2023 have previously held government jobs.
The company said organizational changes affected approximately 40 employees at its Cleveland global headquarters as it reviewed operations and resources. Spokeswoman Julie S. Young said the cuts were not performance-related; the company did not initially identify affected departments. The report was published October 20, 2026.
CLEVELAND — Sherwin-Williams has eliminated approximately 40 positions at its global headquarters as part of what the company described as an ongoing review of its operations, resource allocation and organizational structure.
CARB said Sherwin-Williams aerosol products in California violated rules on prohibited high-GWP compounds, coating reactivity limits and labeling, resulting in emissions of 22.7 tons of high-GWP and 16.3 tons of high ozone-forming compounds. In August 2019, the company settled for $220,000, stopped selling the solvent and brought its coatings into compliance.
In August 2019, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) settled a case with The Sherwin-Williams Company (Sherwin-Williams) of Cleveland, Ohio. Sherwin-Williams sold, supplied, offered for sale or manufactured for sale in California an aerosol multi-purpose solvent which contained a prohibited compound with a high Global Warming Potential (GWP), as specified in California Code of Regulations, title 17 (17 CCR), section94509(n)(1). In addition, Sherwin-Williams sold, supplied, offered for sale or manufactured for sale in California aerosol coating products that: exceeded the reactivity limit for the product categories, as specified in 17 CCR, section 94522; and were in violation of the labeling requirements for aerosol coating products (17 CCR, section 94524(b)) . As a result of these violations, 22.7 tons of high GWP and 16.3 tons of high ozone-forming potential compounds were emitted into the atmosphere statewide. Sherwin-Williams has stopped selling the noncompliant aerosol multi-purpose solvent and brought their aerosol coating products into compliance.
ProPublica’s 527 Explorer lists a $100,000 Sherwin-Williams contribution to the Republican Governors Association. The supplied record does not provide a contribution date or further information about the company’s purpose or involvement.
Sherwin Williams $100,000 contribution to Republican Governors Association — 527 Explorer — ProPublica
A Black paint mixer alleged Sherwin-Williams Manufacturing Company denied him a promotion because of his race, in violation of federal civil rights laws. On May 3, 2024, a Maryland federal court granted the subsidiary’s motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case, finding the parties’ policy delegated arbitrability questions to an arbitrator.
Sherwin-Williams Manufacturing Company’s motion to compel arbitration of a Black paint mixer’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act that he was denied a promotion due to his race is granted, and the matter stayed, a Maryland federal district court ruled, where the parties mutually entered a valid “Employment Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Policy” that delegates a threshold question of arbitrability to an arbitrator, and it covers the instant dispute.
A Cleveland.com commentary says lawsuits over lead poisoning were initially brought against rental-property owners. It attributes that focus in part to the Lead Industries Association steering blame away from paint companies and toward landlords, arguing landlords had failed to maintain safe homes or repair peeling paint.
Early on, lawsuits were filed against the owners of rental properties where lead paint poisoning had occurred. This happened in part because the Lead Industries Association was successful in steering the blame away from paint companies and toward landlords and slums. The argument was landlords had failed to maintain safe homes or repair peeling paint.
Sherwin-Williams agreed to settle FTC charges that its proposed $11.3 billion acquisition of Valspar would likely reduce competition in North American industrial wood coatings. The consent terms required divesting Valspar’s business assets, including two plants in North Carolina and Ontario, to Axalta. The FTC’s complaint said the companies were two of the market’s three largest manufacturers.
The Sherwin-Williams Company agreed to settle charges that its proposed $11.3 billion acquisition of Valspar Corporation is likely anticompetitive by selling Valspar’s North America Industrial Wood Coatings Business to Axalta Coating Systems Ltd. The transaction would combine Sherwin-Williams and Valspar, two of the top three industrial wood coatings manufacturers. According to the complaint, the acquisition as originally proposed likely would reduce competition in the North American market for industrial wood coatings used to make furniture, kitchen cabinets, and building products. Under the terms of the consent agreement, Sherwin-Williams will divest to Axalta two Valspar industrial wood coatings plants, one in High Point, North Carolina, and the other in Cornwall, Ontario. Axalta will also receive the research and development facilities, warehouses and testing facilities of Valspar’s Industrial Wood Coatings Business, as well as customer contracts, intellectual property, inventory, accounts receivable, government licenses and permits, and business records.
OpenSecrets lists Sherwin-Williams Co as lobbying on six bills in the 118th Congress, including measures concerning rehabilitation and historic tax credits, tax relief for families and workers, seniors’ savings, and psychedelic therapy. The table reports eight quarterly filings for five bills and four for the psychedelic therapy bill; each quarterly filing counts separately.
<table> <thead> <tr> <th>Bill Number</th> <th>Congress</th> <th>Title</th> <th>No. of Reports & Specific Issues*</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>H.R.5882 </td> <td>118</td> <td>To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the rehabilitation credit to allow such credit to be taken in one taxable year.</td> <td>8</td> </tr> <tr> <td>H.R.7024 </td> <td>118</td> <td>Tax Relief for American Families and Workers Act of 2024</td> <td>8</td> </tr> <tr> <td>H.R.1785 </td> <td>118</td> <td>Historic Tax Credit Growth and Opportunity Act of 2023</td> <td>8</td> </tr> <tr> <td>H.R.5376 </td> <td>118</td> <td>Share the Savings with Seniors Act</td> <td>8</td> </tr> <tr> <td>S.639 </td> <td>118</td> <td>Historic Tax Credit Growth and Opportunity Act of 2023</td> <td>8</td> </tr> <tr> <td>H.R.3684 </td> <td>118</td> <td>Douglas Mike Day Psychedelic Therapy to Save Lives Act of 2023</td> <td>4</td> </tr> </tbody> <tfoot> <tr> <td colspan="4">*Each quarterly filing is treated as a separate report.</td> </tr> </tfoot> </table>
CARB said Sherwin-Williams sold, supplied, offered or manufactured in California an aerosol coating that failed regulatory administrative requirements. In April 2023, the company agreed to a $9,000 penalty for one day of violation, cooperated with the agency and modified the product to comply.
An investigation conducted by CARB staff revealed that Sherwin-Williams sold, supplied, offered for sale and/or manufactured for use in California, an aerosol coating product that did not meet administrative requirements specified in the California Code of Regulations, title 17, section 94524(b)(1). To settle the case, Sherwin-Williams agreed to a penalty of $9,000 for one day of violation.