Beyond the payroll: Baltimore’s 1099 workers and the critical oversight of asbestos exposure
Essentially, America’s occupational safety framework was largely built around a simple assumption: that workers have employers. This relationship extends beyond wages and supervision—it also determines who documents workplace hazards, monitors potential exposures, and maintains employment logs that may prove valuable decades later. For personnel detrimentally in contact with asbestos—a carcinogen that is one of the leading cause of occupational lung cancer and the primary known cause of mesothelioma—those records can help reconstruct their exposure risk long after their career has ended. Regrettably, many self-employed or 1099 workers performed many of the same perilous jobs without an employer responsible for preserving that history. And in Baltimore, Maryland, where a considerable number of independent tradespeople engaged in vital industries—most notably aerospace, defense, shipbuilding, steel, and construction—that critical gap leaves victims with little more than scattered documents and vague memories to piece together years of potential asbestos exposure.
Baltimore’s 1099 Workers Still At Risk of Asbestos Exposure
Although asbestos use has declined considerably over the years—with chrysotile, the last form allowed, restricted in 2024—its legacy remains woven into Baltimore’s industrial history. As a naturally occurring mineral, this component was present in the environment long before its commercial rise, including areas of Maryland where substantial deposits have been identified. Yet its greatest impact came from how extensively industries embraced it since the late 1800s, when manufacturers recognized its low cost and heat resistance. Those same characteristics also made asbestos a common fixture in Baltimore facilities, such as the Sparrows Point Shipyard and former Sparrows Point Steel Mill, as well as the Key Highway Shipyard.
Given this history, it’s easy to understand why, between 1940 and 1979, roughly 27 million workers—independent electricians, plumbers, mechanics, remodelers, and flooring contractors among them—came into contact with asbestos while installing, repairing, or maintaining structures and equipment. What many didn’t realize at the time was that the mineral’s fibers are toxic, capable of causing asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma years or even decades after exposure. That long latency period continues to be felt in the Baltimore region: between 1999 and 2017, asbestos-related illness contributed to nearly 1,300 deaths in the county and roughly 600 in the city. Meanwhile, the broader national burden remains significant, with related deaths increasing by 20.2% from 1990 to 2019 and roughly 3,000 mesothelioma cases diagnosed annually.
Closing the Visibility Gap for Baltimore’s 1099 Workforce
The issue affecting Baltimore’s asbestos-exposed 1099 workers extends beyond the hazards they encountered decades ago—it also involves whether those experiences can still be recognized today. Unlike employees whose work histories may be documented through company files, union records, or workplace reports, many independent contractors built their careers across countless short-term projects with no single organization responsible for maintaining their occupational history. Over time, invoices disappear, businesses close, permits become difficult to access, and personal memories become harder to rely on. And for asbestos-associated diseases—which may appear only decades later—losing that information can make an already difficult situation even more challenging.
Therefore, Baltimore—and the entire nation—can address this issue by expanding exposure-awareness efforts beyond traditional workplaces. Federal agencies—including the EPA, CDC, OSHA, and NIOSH, along with Maryland licensing boards, trade organizations, and other stakeholders—should support practical tools that help self-employed workers document potential exposures throughout their careers. The purpose is not to guarantee outcomes or determine eligibility for claims but to ensure that independent workers are not excluded from the broader understanding of asbestos exposure. After all, a worker’s employment status should never determine whether their occupational risks are recognized.
About the Author
Jordan Cade is an attorney at Environmental Litigation Group, P.C., a Birmingham, AL-based firm specializing in toxic exposure cases.