Corporate Misconduct Case Study: Valcourt & FirstService Residential & Its Impact on Public Health

Tl;DR At a residential condominium complex in Pennsylvania, contract workers were ordered to sand and grind balcony materials, releasing toxic asbestos fibers into the air. An investigation by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) revealed the company, Valcourt Exterior Building Services of NJ, LLC, used untrained and unlicensed laborers for this hazardous work. The property management firm, FirstService Residential MidAtlantic, LLC, which supervised the facility, failed to ensure basic safety protocols were followed.

The companies neglected to notify regulators of the asbestos removal, failed to wet the cancer-causing material to keep it from going airborne, and knowingly used a workforce without the legally required training to handle it safely. For endangering residents, workers, and the surrounding community, the two companies agreed to pay a civil penalty of just $48,805, a settlement that also allows them to avoid any admission of wrongdoing! This case is a chilling illustration of how corporate profit incentives can override public health, turning residential communities into sites of potential toxic exposure.

The following article breaks down the details of the case, exposing a system that often fails to protect the public from corporate negligence.

Introduction: Profit Over People

In a quiet suburb of Philadelphia, a scene unfolded that captures the calculated indifference of modern corporate enterprise.

At the Contemporary Villages Condominiums, workers were actively sanding and grinding asbestos-laced materials on apartment balconies, sending clouds of microscopic, cancer-causing fibers into the air. This was not an accident but the result of a series of deliberate business decisions made by Valcourt Exterior Building Services of NJ and the property manager, FirstService Residential MidAtlantic.

The companies responsible for the renovation project chose to forgo basic, legally mandated safety measures.

They deployed an untrained, unlicensed workforce to handle one of the most notorious carcinogens known to man, all without notifying environmental regulators. This incident offers a clear window into the logic of neoliberal capitalism, where public health and worker safety are treated not as moral imperatives, but as expenses on a balance sheet to be minimized in the pursuit of profit.

The case exposes the structural failures that enable such behavior. It highlights a regulatory system that often acts only after the damage is done and a legal framework that allows corporations to pay a modest fee to resolve serious violations without admitting fault. The story of what happened at Contemporary Villages is the story of how our system prioritizes corporate convenience over the well-being of communities and workers.

Inside the Allegations: A Pattern of Willful Negligence

The Environmental Protection Agency’s investigation paints a damning picture of corporate misconduct. The core of the case rests on three distinct and serious violations of the Clean Air Act, a federal law designed to protect the public from hazardous air pollutants like asbestos. These were failures that created a direct and immediate health risk.

First, the companies completely failed to provide authorities with a legally required “written notice of intention to demolish or renovate.” This notice must be delivered at least ten working days before any asbestos stripping begins, giving regulators a chance to monitor the work. By skipping this step, Valcourt and FirstService Residential operated in the shadows, avoiding the oversight meant to protect the public.

Second, they violated one of the most critical asbestos safety rules: keeping the material adequately wet at all times. Asbestos is most dangerous when it is dry and friable, as the fibers can easily become airborne and inhaled. EPA inspectors found dry asbestos debris on the balconies where work was being done, in and around a dumpster, and scattered near two of the condominium buildings, with no water source like a hose or spray bottle in sight.

The third and most alarming allegation was the failure to have a trained and licensed representative on-site. When questioned, a Valcourt employee admitted to the EPA inspector that none of the workers conducting the asbestos removal were trained or licensed for such hazardous activities. The companies knowingly sent unprotected workers to handle a carcinogen, demonstrating a profound disregard for both public and worker safety.

Timeline of Failure

The sequence of events reveals a reactive and negligent approach to safety, where testing for hazardous materials only occurred after regulators appeared on site.

Date	Event
c. July 10, 2022	This was the approximate deadline by which Valcourt and FirstService were legally required to notify the EPA of their planned asbestos removal. They failed to submit any notification.
July 20, 2022	An EPA inspector arrived at the Contemporary Villages Condominiums and discovered untrained workers actively sanding and grinding dry asbestos-containing materials on balconies. The inspector documented the dry debris and collected 11 samples for testing.
July 21, 2022	One day after the EPA inspection, the companies hired Hillman Consulting to perform testing for hazardous materials on site.
July 26, 2022	The consultant’s report confirmed the presence of both asbestos and lead-based paint in the materials being removed.
August 3 & 5, 2022	Laboratory analysis of the EPA’s samples was conducted. The results would later confirm that nine of the eleven samples contained more than one percent asbestos, officially classifying it as Regulated Asbestos-Containing Material (RACM).
August 17, 2022	During a follow-up inspection, the EPA once again observed pieces of dry, sanded asbestos debris on the ground near one of the condo units.
June 4, 2025	A final Consent Agreement was filed, in which Valcourt and FirstService agreed to pay a $48,805 penalty to settle the violations without admitting to the factual allegations.

Export to Sheets

Regulatory Weakness: A System Designed for Reaction, Not Prevention

The case at Contemporary Villages demonstrates a fundamental weakness in our regulatory system. The framework is largely reactive, relying on inspections and citizen complaints to catch violators after the public has already been exposed. The EPA was not alerted to the danger through a corporate compliance program but had to discover it during an inspection that took place well after the hazardous work had begun.

This after-the-fact enforcement is a feature, not a bug, of a system shaped by decades of deregulation and anti-government sentiment. Understaffed and underfunded, agencies like the EPA cannot proactively police every work site. Instead, they are forced into a cat-and-mouse game with companies that treat regulations as an obstacle to be circumvented rather than a baseline for responsible conduct.

Furthermore, the settlement itself illustrates the limits of corporate accountability. By entering a Consent Agreement, Valcourt and FirstService were able to resolve the serious allegations without admitting they were true. This legal maneuver allows the companies to pay a financial penalty—one that may be seen as a simple cost of doing business—while avoiding a formal judgment of guilt that could be used against them in future civil lawsuits by residents or workers who may develop asbestos-related diseases.

Profit-Maximization at All Costs: The Core of Corporate Ethics

Every violation committed by Valcourt and FirstService Residential can be traced back to a single, driving motive: maximizing profit by cutting costs. The decisions made were not random oversights but calculated economic choices that prioritized the bottom line over human health. This reflects the core logic of neoliberal capitalism, where all aspects of business are financialized and moral duties are secondary to shareholder returns.

Hiring untrained and unlicensed workers is significantly cheaper than employing certified asbestos abatement professionals. Proper safety protocols—including containment structures, specialized equipment, and the labor-intensive process of keeping asbestos waste constantly wet—add time and expense to a project. By ignoring these requirements, the companies boosted their profit margins.

The failure to notify the EPA was also an economic decision. Compliance involves administrative work and, more importantly, invites scrutiny that can slow a project down and force adherence to costly safety rules. The $48,805 penalty, when spread across the company’s full portfolio of projects, is a minuscule expense compared to the savings realized from widespread non-compliance. The system creates an incentive to break the law and treat the potential fine as a manageable business risk.

The Economic Fallout: Shifting Costs to the Public

In the logic of corporate accounting, Valcourt and FirstService successfully reduced their operational expenses. However, they did not eliminate these costs; they simply externalized them, shifting the financial and health burdens onto their workers, the condominium residents, and the public at large. This privatization of profit and socialization of risk is a defining feature of our economic system.

The true economic fallout is not measured by the modest penalty paid by the companies but by the potential long-term costs now borne by others. Residents of Contemporary Villages may face diminished property values due to the stigma of toxic contamination. More gravely, anyone exposed to the airborne asbestos fibers—residents, children playing outside, and the untrained workers themselves—now faces a lifetime of risk for developing mesothelioma, asbestosis, or lung cancer, diseases with staggering medical costs and devastating human consequences.

These future healthcare expenses will not be paid by the companies that created the hazard. They will be borne by the victims, their families, and public health systems funded by taxpayers. The companies’ cost-saving measures have created a debt of potential suffering and financial hardship that society will be forced to pay for decades to come.

Environmental & Public Health Risks: A Community Exposed

The actions of Valcourt and FirstService created a significant and unnecessary public health threat. Asbestos is a regulated hazardous air pollutant for a reason: there is no safe level of exposure. When its microscopic fibers are inhaled, they become permanently lodged in the lungs and can lead to fatal diseases decades later.

The renovation project disturbed at least 1,068 square feet of asbestos-containing material, nearly seven times the regulatory threshold that triggers safety requirements. The sanding and grinding of this material aerosolized the toxic fibers, allowing them to drift freely throughout a residential community. The dry asbestos debris found around the buildings and in an open dumpster acted as an ongoing source of contamination, posing a risk to anyone who walked by, including children and pets.

The absence of a simple water hose or spray bottle reveals the depth of the negligence. Adequately wetting asbestos is the most fundamental and effective method for preventing fiber release. The companies’ failure to implement this basic precaution transformed a controlled renovation into an uncontrolled release of a known carcinogen into a neighborhood, prioritizing expediency over the community’s right to a safe environment.

Exploitation of Workers: The Human Cost of Cutting Corners

Beyond the risk to residents, the case reveals a profound exploitation of the companies’ own labor force. By using untrained and unlicensed workers for hazardous asbestos removal, Valcourt and FirstService put their employees in the direct line of fire. These workers were handling a deadly material without the proper training, equipment, or knowledge of the grave, long-term health risks involved.

This act exposes the deep power imbalance in the modern employer-employee relationship. The workers were likely unaware of the specific dangers they faced, trusting their employer to provide a safe work environment. That trust was betrayed for financial gain.

This form of exploitation is a common outcome of a system that treats labor as a disposable commodity. The health of these workers was sacrificed to save on the cost of hiring certified professionals. They now face an uncertain future, with the possibility of a devastating medical diagnosis years down the road, all because their employer decided that their safety was an acceptable expense to cut.

Community Impact: Local Lives Undermained

The Contemporary Villages Condominium is a residential community, a place where people live, sleep, and raise families. The corporate negligence of Valcourt and FirstService Residential transformed this private space into a zone of potential toxic exposure. Every resident of the Glenolden, Pennsylvania, facility was unknowingly placed at risk.

The impact extends beyond the immediate health threat of inhaling asbestos fibers. The knowledge that their homes were contaminated can create profound psychological distress and financial uncertainty for residents. The presence of dry asbestos debris on the ground and around buildings meant that the hazardous material could be tracked into homes on shoes and clothing, creating long-term indoor exposure risks.

This case undermines the fundamental sense of security that residents are entitled to in their own homes. The evil companies responsible were contractors and managers entrusted with the upkeep of the facility. Their failure betrayed that trust and imposed a lasting burden of fear and potential illness upon the entire community.

The PR Machine: Corporate Spin Tactics

Faced with evidence of their misconduct, the companies engaged in a classic corporate spin tactic: creating a retroactive paper trail of diligence. The EPA inspection occurred on July 20, 2022, catching the untrained workers in the act. According to the companies’ own letter to the EPA, it was only on the following day, July 21, 2022, that they hired a consulting firm to test for hazardous materials.

This sequence is revealing. A truly responsible company would test for asbestos before beginning any renovation, as required by law and basic ethics. Instead, Valcourt and FirstService only sought confirmation of the hazard after regulators had already documented the violations.

This move allowed them to frame their actions as responsible in their communications with the EPA, suggesting they were taking steps to address the issue. In reality, it was a reactive measure designed to mitigate their legal exposure after being caught. It is a cynical form of reputation management that attempts to obscure proactive negligence with the appearance of reactive compliance.

Wealth Disparity & Corporate Greed

The civil penalty agreed upon in this case—$48,805—is a ghastly illustration of the deep disparity between corporate wealth and corporate accountability. For large commercial enterprises like Valcourt Exterior Building Services and FirstService Residential, a global leader in property management, this amount is not a punishment. It is a minor, predictable, and easily absorbed cost of doing business.

This figure stands in steep contrast to the immense and potentially lifelong costs imposed on the victims. The medical treatment for asbestos-related cancers can run into hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars per person, a burden that crushes families. The penalty paid by the companies that created the risk does not even begin to approach the potential cost of care for a single victim.

This demonstrates the core logic of corporate greed in a system of weak regulation. When the financial penalty for endangering the public is negligible compared to the profits gained from cutting corners, the economically rational choice is to continue the harmful behavior. The law, in this case, serves not as a deterrent, but as a licensing fee for misconduct.

This Is the System Working as Intended

It is tempting to view cases like this as a failure of the system, an aberration from the norm. The truth is more unsettling: this is the system functioning exactly as it was designed to under the pressures of late-stage capitalism. The outcome is the predictable result of a framework that structurally prioritizes profit over people.

The low fine, the absence of an admission of guilt, and the focus on reactive rather than preventative enforcement are all features that serve corporate interests. They create a stable, predictable environment for companies to externalize costs and minimize the financial impact of their own negligence. The system effectively contains corporate liability while leaving workers and communities to bear the true cost.

The events at Contemporary Villages were not an anomaly committed by a few rogue actors. They were the logical actions of businesses operating within a system that rewards cost-cutting and risk-taking, and that insulates corporate entities from the most severe consequences of their actions. This is not a broken system; it is an economic system delivering on its promise to protect capital above all else.

Corporate Accountability Fails the Public

The final settlement in this case represents a profound failure of corporate accountability. By allowing Valcourt and FirstService Residential to resolve the violations without admitting to the specific factual allegations, the justice system shields the companies from public condemnation and future liability. Residents who may later develop asbestos-related diseases will be unable to use this EPA action as a clear admission of guilt in any potential lawsuit.

The penalty of $48,805 is grossly insufficient to serve as a meaningful deterrent for future misconduct. It sends a clear message to the industry that endangering a residential community with a known carcinogen carries a financial risk equivalent to a rounding error in their annual budget. There is no incentive for systemic change, only a weak incentive to be more careful about getting caught.

Ultimately, no individuals were held responsible. Corporate structures are designed to diffuse responsibility, ensuring that while the company pays a minor fine, the executives and managers who presided over the dangerous decisions face no personal consequences. This lack of individual accountability ensures that the culture of prioritizing profit over safety will persist.

Pathways for Reform & Consumer Advocacy

Preventing future tragedies like the one at Contemporary Villages requires fundamental reforms that shift the balance of power away from corporations and toward the public. The current system of weak fines and reactive enforcement is demonstrably inadequate.

First, financial penalties must be scaled to a company’s revenue to ensure they are genuinely punitive rather than a minor business expense. A fine should be painful enough to command the attention of the boardroom and force a change in behavior.

Second, legal loopholes like the “no-admit” clause should be eliminated in cases involving significant threats to public health. Companies that endanger communities should be forced to acknowledge their actions on the public record. This provides a measure of justice for victims and strengthens their ability to seek civil recourse.

Finally, there must be a move toward greater criminal liability for the corporate executives who oversee or tacitly approve of such violations. When managers and officers face the possibility of personal consequences, not just a corporate fine, the calculus of risk changes dramatically. Only then will safety be treated as a non-negotiable moral and legal duty.

Conclusion

The case of Valcourt Exterior Building Services and FirstService Residential is more than a story of one mismanaged renovation. It is a case study in the systemic failures of a society that has allowed corporate interests to supersede the fundamental right to a safe and healthy environment. For the sake of expediency and profit, these companies unleashed a known carcinogen into a residential community, using untrained workers as their instruments and putting everyone at risk.

The outcome—a paltry fine with no admission of wrongdoing—is an insult to the community they endangered and the workers they exploited. It underscores a broken regulatory and legal system where accountability is negotiable and penalties are merely the price of doing business. The real costs, measured in fear, illness, and potentially lost lives, will be paid by the residents of Contemporary Villages for decades to come. This is the enduring legacy of prioritizing profit over people.

Frivolous or Serious Lawsuit?

This enforcement action by the Environmental Protection Agency was unequivocally serious and necessary. The legitimacy of the case is grounded in overwhelming evidence of clear and dangerous violations of federal law. This was a fundamental breakdown of public health protections.

The evidence documented by the EPA was direct and compelling:

• An on-site inspector witnessed the violations firsthand.
• Physical samples collected from the site were lab-tested and confirmed to contain more than one percent asbestos, meeting the legal definition of a regulated hazardous material.
• A representative of Valcourt admitted on-site that the workforce was not trained or licensed to perform hazardous asbestos abatement.

The violations—failing to notify regulators, failing to keep asbestos wet, and using an untrained workforce—are among the most serious offenses under the Asbestos NESHAP regulations because they create the highest risk of public exposure. This case was a textbook example of why these laws exist and a necessary, if ultimately insufficient, attempt to hold corporations accountable for endangering the public.

The consent agreement and final order can be found on the EPA’s website: https://yosemite.epa.gov/oa/rhc/epaadmin.nsf/Filings/4356A34E507E851385258CA0006FA417/$File/Valcourt%20Exterior%20Building%20Services%20of%20NJ%20LLC_FirstService%20Residential%20MidAtlantic%20LLC_Contemporary%20Villages_CAA%20CAFO_June%204%202025_Redacted.pdf

💡 Explore Corporate Misconduct by Category

Corporations harm people every day — from wage theft to pollution. Learn more by exploring key areas of injustice.

• 💀 Product Safety Violations — When companies risk lives for profit.
• 🌿 Environmental Violations — Pollution, ecological collapse, and unchecked greed.
• 💼 Labor Exploitation — Wage theft, worker abuse, and unsafe conditions.
• 🛡️ Data Breaches & Privacy Abuses — Misuse and mishandling of personal information.
• 💵 Financial Fraud & Corruption — Lies, scams, and executive impunity.

NOTE:

This website is facing massive amounts of headwind trying to procure the lawsuits relating to corporate misconduct. We are being pimp-slapped by a quadruple whammy:

1. The Trump regime's reversal of the laws & regulations meant to protect us is making it so victims are no longer filing lawsuits for shit which was previously illegal.
2. Donald Trump's defunding of regulatory agencies led to the frequency of enforcement actions severely decreasing. What's more, the quality of the enforcement actions has also plummeted.
3. The GOP's insistence on cutting the healthcare funding for millions of Americans in order to give their billionaire donors additional tax cuts has recently shut the government down. This government shut down has also impacted the aforementioned defunded agencies capabilities to crack down on evil-doers. Donald Trump has since threatened to make these agency shutdowns permanent on account of them being "democrat agencies".
4. My access to the LexisNexis legal research platform got revoked. This isn't related to Trump or anything, but it still hurt as I'm being forced to scrounge around public sources to find legal documents now. Sadge.

All four of these factors are severely limiting my ability to access stories of corporate misconduct.

Due to this, I have temporarily decreased the amount of articles published everyday from 5 down to 3, and I will also be publishing articles from previous years as I was fortunate enough to download a butt load of EPA documents back in 2022 and 2023 to make YouTube videos with.... This also means that you'll be seeing many more environmental violation stories going forward :3

Thank you for your attention to this matter,

Aleeia (owner and publisher of www.evilcorporations.com)

Also, can we talk about how ICE has a $170 billion annual budget, while the EPA-- which protects the air we breathe and water we drink-- barely clocks $4 billion? Just something to think about....