Narratives of Exposure: Conveying Real-World Harm in Environmental Justice Cases
In the legal world, “standing declarations” are written statements used to establish a client’s right to sue by documenting to the court how they’ve been directly harmed.
While applicable across all legal contexts, my work has focused on cases involving toxic chemical exposure, where our clients hope to convey the impact of pollution and contamination on their health, livelihoods, and communities.
These narratives are not only emotionally powerful—they are legally necessary to move cases forward. Rooted in empathy, listening, and respect for their lived experiences, the process of collecting standing declarations closely mirrors the values that guide thoughtful design research.
Background
In June 2021, I joined the Toxic Exposure & Health Program to support legal efforts on behalf of communities impacted by environmental harm.
Most of the cases I work on involve challenging a specific EPA rule that governs how a harmful chemical is regulated. In these cases, we need to demonstrate that people are being harmed by the continued presence of the chemical—harm that persists due to insufficient regulatory action.
Team
A typical case team includes:
A lead senior attorney;
1-2 associate attorneys;
Occasionally a staff scientist; and
Myself, serving as the paralegal.
Timeframe
Approximately 1-2 months
Project Outputs
The # of standing declarations collected depends on the # of client organizations. At least one declaration is required each organization, with up to as many as 10 clients.
Each declaration typically ranges from 5 to 10 pages in length.
Methodology
Semi-Structured Client Interviews
My Role
Since joining the team, I have contributed to over 10 long-term cases, participating in and eventually leading the process of gathering standing declarations.
In my current role, I take the lead on the standing declaration process—identifying participants from client organizations, designing interview questions, conducting interviews, synthesizing insights, and drafting written statements that support our case.
In the following section, I outline the standard research process I follow through these cases, with identifying details omitted to protect attorney-client privilege.
(1) Stakeholder Interviews
Before interviews, I meet with attorneys and scientists to align on case goals and context. These conversations help shape the interview guide by identifying key impacts, behaviors, and themes to surface. I typically ask:
What types of harm or experiences are most relevant to highlight?
Are there specific behaviors, symptoms, or lifestyle changes to look out for?
What scientific background should inform how I frame the questions?
These inputs ensure the interviews are purposeful and aligned with broader case strategy.
(2) Client Interviews
To illustrate the client interview process, I will share a common sample case regarding chemical releases from facilities affecting nearby communities. These clients are often disproportionately harmed through contaminated air and water.
I conduct interviews, usually lasting 1 to 1.5 hours, to explore how these environmental hazards impact their daily behaviors, health, and wellbeing. The insights gathered help capture personal experiences of harm. Some sample questions I ask include:
How has living near the facility affected your daily routines or activities?
Are there places you avoid or limit time spent in because of air or water concerns?
What changes have you noticed in your health or the health of your family?
Have you changed how you use water or food because of contamination worries?
What support or resources do you wish were available to help address these issues?
(3) Synthesis and Storycrafting
After conducting interviews, I code and organize the data into thematic categories—behavioral changes, physical health, interaction with local environment, family & children, and perceptions of EPA. This structured synthesis uncovers key patterns and shared experiences among participants.
These insights not only guide the drafting of standing declarations but also become integral to shaping our legal arguments, helping to clearly demonstrate the tangible harms caused by inadequate EPA regulation.
Key findings from a recent case include:
Residents switch from tap water to bottled water to avoid contamination.
Many limit outdoor activities such as walking near the facilities.
Residents with children avoid taking them to parks close to facilities.
Strong emotional frustration toward the EPA’s inadequate regulatory actions.
Persistent anxiety and mental stress related to concerns for family health and safety.
Impact
By embedding these human-centered narratives within our litigation, the case gains a compelling, grounded voice that highlights the real-world impact of environmental injustice.
Here are just a few examples of past cases that I have worked on and gathered standing declarations for:
Reflections
While rooted in legal advocacy, this project required many of the same skills essential to effective user and design research. At the core of both is the ability to listen deeply, ask thoughtful questions, and synthesize complex, human-centered stories into meaningful insights.
Designing and conducting standing declaration interviews demanded a strong grasp of qualitative methods—from crafting semi-structured interview guides to identifying recurring themes and patterns across narratives. These same techniques apply directly to user research, where understanding people’s behaviors, pain points, and needs informs more intentional and empathetic design.