Failure To Accommodate A High-Risk Pregnancy: Legal And Practical Lessons From A $22.5 Million Verdict

An Ohio jury recently awarded $22.5 million to a woman whose company initially denied her request to work remotely during a high-risk pregnancy.¹ Forced to continue working in person, against medical advice, she tragically lost her baby. This verdict stands as a sobering reminder of the consequences that can follow when employers fail to meaningfully engage with workplace accommodations for pregnant employees.

In Larkin v. Total Quality Logistics, LLC (“TQL”), Chelsea Walsh was hired as a Claims Associate while TQL was aware of her pregnancy.² She began her role in January 2021, but soon thereafter experienced serious pregnancy complications that required emergency surgery to prevent preterm labor. Following the procedure, her doctor placed her on modified bed rest for the remainder of her pregnancy in an effort to mitigate the risk of early labor.

Upon Walsh’s return to work, she immediately requested to work from home as an accommodation – one that she hoped would protect the health of her unborn child. Although one of her managers informally approved the accommodation, TQL failed to officially approve the accommodation. Instead, the company placed Walsh on a leave of absence. Walsh’s doctor, however, had authorized only a brief leave, with the understanding Walsh could resume work remotely thereafter. TQL, however, insisted Walsh remain on unpaid leave for the duration of her pregnancy.

To counteract TQL’s position, Walsh visited her obstetrician and received doctor’s note stating that Walsh could continue working, provided she did so from home due to her pregnancy complications. TQL denied her request, citing the absence of a defined end date, and informed Walsh that she was expected to return to the office the following Monday, February 22, 2021. That same day, Walsh submitted updated documentation including the requested end date. Apparently still unsatisfied with the documentation, TQL presented Walsh with two options: (1) remain on unpaid leave until childbirth; or (2) return to in-person work. The first option left her in a financially vulnerable position and potentially cost her the health insurance she had been counting on, coverage that was set to begin March 1, 2021, given her status as a new hire, and the second option was against medical advice. Faced with these bleak choices, Walsh returned to the office. On February 24, 2021, after further consideration and pressure from third parties, TQL reconsidered Walsh’s accommodation and allowed her to begin working from home. Walsh packed up her items and began working remotely pursuant to her doctor’s medical advice.

On the evening of February 24, 2021, Walsh began experiencing severe cramping and bleeding. She rushed to the hospital, where she gave birth to her daughter, Magnolia Walsh, at 21 weeks. Magnolia was born with a heartbeat, breathing, and signs of movement, but tragically died approximately ninety minutes after birth. Less than a week after losing her daughter, TQL expected Walsh back in office.

From the date of her initial emergency procedure, February 11, 2021, to her return to the TQL office, February 15, 2021, to the date she lost her child, February 24, 2021, Walsh endured a compressed and traumatic sequence of events. The jury concluded that TQL’s initial refusal to accommodate her medical needs imposed unnecessary stress to an already high-risk pregnancy, with permanent consequences.

Approximately two years later, Walsh brought suit on behalf of her daughter’s estate, alleging that the company’s denial of Walsh’s request to work remotely placed her daughter in danger of harm causing foreseeable injury her child. Notably, the Estate brought this case under a single count of wrongful death, a strikingly unusual posture: a child’s estate seeking to hold its mother’s employer liable for wrongful death based on conduct subject to workplace protections before the child was even born.

TQL defends its actions by claiming it understood Walsh’s initial doctor’s response to classify her as unable to work in any capacity, rather than capable of working with restrictions. According to the TQL, this understanding justified its decision to place her on a leave of absence rather than engage in further consideration of a remote-work accommodation. In addition, TQL pointed to its internal policies and the essential functions of Walsh’s role, arguing that in-person attendance was a core requirement of the position and that remote work was not a standard or readily available option for similarly situated employees. TQL further contends that it did not act with discriminatory intent, emphasizing that it offered Walsh the option of taking leave (albeit unpaid) as an alternative means of addressing her medical condition and eventually granted the accommodation request (albeit too late). The jury, however, was unpersuaded by these justifications and ultimately rejected TQL’s position.

On March 18, 2026, after a seven-day trial, a jury found TQL liable for $22.5 million in damages for its failure to properly handle Walsh’s accommodation requests. While grounded in wrongful death, this verdict serves as a cautionary tale to employers about the importance of properly assessing accommodation requests, with the recognition of the potential consequences for pregnant women and their families. It signals a willingness by juries to draw a direct line between workplace decisions and medical outcomes. While the legal focus was on the wrongful death itself, TQL’s failure to accommodate served as the underlying wrongful act. Laws such as the Pregnant Works Fairness Act (PWFA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) help define the employer’s duty to provide reasonable accommodations for employees and engage in a good-faith process. Here, the jury found that TQL’s failure to meet those obligations could be treated as negligence, and that this failure was a substantial contributing factor in the premature birth and death of Walsh’s child. In this way, the employment law violations were not separate claims, but the basis for establishing liability in the wrongful death action.

For employers, the message is clear: accommodation requests should not be treated as mere administrative tasks. They demand careful, individualized assessment and good-faith engagement from the start. When mishandled, the consequences may extend far beyond legal exposure. They may carry real costs that no policy or settlement can fully repair. It is therefore critical that employers fully understand their responsibilities under federal and state laws protecting pregnant workers.

At the same time, it is equally important for employees to be aware of their rights and the avenues of recourse available if they should experience discrimination or retaliation due to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. Greater awareness and proactive communications on both sides may prevent misunderstandings and foster a safer and more supportive working environment. Ultimately ensuring compliance with laws such as PWFA, ADA, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and the Providing Urgent Maternal Protections for Nursing Mothers Act (PUMP Act), alongside state and local laws, is not merely a matter of legal obligation, but it is essential to safeguarding both employee well-being and organizational integrity.

Footnotes

1. TQL Jury Awards $22.5 Million to Former Claims Associate in Pregnancy Accommodation Case, Wolterman Law (Mar. 18, 2026), https://www.woltermanlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/2026-03-18-Larkin-v.-Total-Quality-Logistics-press-release-1-2.pdf

2. First Amended Complaint, Larkin v. Total Quality Logistics, LLC, No. A2300752 (Ohio Ct. Com. Pl.)

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.