You Just Saved Us a Lawsuit: $22.5M Verdict Redefines Ohio Employer Accommodations

On March 18, 2026, an Ohio jury delivered what may be the most consequential employer-accommodation verdict in the state’s history, and it was not even brought as an accommodation case.

In Larkin v. Total Quality Logistics, LLC, the jury ordered the defendant/employer to pay $22.5 million in compensatory damages after finding the company’s refusal to allow a pregnant employee to work from home, in direct contravention of her physicians’ orders, caused the death of her newborn daughter.

This is not a statutory discrimination case. This is not a Pregnant Workers Fairness Act claim. This is a common-law wrongful death action under Ohio Revised Code Chapter 2125, which is a negligence-based tort theory that holds an employer directly liable for the death of an employee’s child resulting from the employer’s failure to grant a reasonable workplace accommodation. The implications for Ohio employers are staggering.

Background Facts

Chelsea Walsh was employed as a claims specialist at TQL. In early February 2021, Walsh experienced pregnancy complications that required emergency cervical surgery to prevent premature labor. Following the procedure, her obstetrician classified her pregnancy as high-risk and ordered her to remain on modified bed rest, limit physical activity, and work from home.

Just four days after the surgery, she submitted a formal request to work from home so she could continue to work through the remainder of her pregnancy while maintaining her income and health insurance. Her employer denied the request and told her that she could return to the office and risk additional strain on the pregnancy or take an unpaid leave of absence and lose the income and health insurance.

Walsh’s physician submitted two separate letters supporting the work-from-home accommodation. The first was rejected by Walsh’s manager, who claimed the letter lacked an end date and a sufficient medical reason. A second was more detailed and expressly requested remote work “to prevent further complications with her high-risk pregnancy, due to increased activity at the workplace.” That letter further noted that the accommodation was needed through July 2021, including the end date that the first letter lacked. Walsh’s manager forwarded this second letter to HR with the message: “Did you want to take it from here?”

Again, the employer denied the request and offered extended unpaid leave. Facing the loss of income and health coverage, Walsh returned to TQL’s office on February 22, 2021.

On February 24, 2021, two days after returning, Walsh began experiencing cramping and bleeding. She was admitted to the hospital and delivered her daughter at 20 weeks. The baby died ninety minutes later.

The Verdict: $22.5 Million in Compensatory Damages

After a seven-day trial before Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Christopher Wagner, a jury of five women and three men returned a verdict of $25 million in total compensatory damages, apportioning 90% of the fault to TQL, resulting in a net judgment of $22.5 million against the company. The actual plaintiff in the case was the estate of Magnolia Walsh, brought as a wrongful death action. Notably, the trial court denied the plaintiff’s request for punitive damages, meaning the $22.5 million represents only compensatory damages.

TQL has indicated it disagrees with the verdict and is evaluating its legal options. Post-trial motions and a potential appeal are expected.

Why This Case Changes Everything

This case was based on a tort theory, not a statutory discrimination claim, a critical distinction that makes this case significant. The case was not brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title VII, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, or the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (which did not take effect until June 27, 2023, more than two years after the events at issue). Instead, the Walsh family’s attorneys pursued this as a common-law wrongful death action under Ohio Revised Code § 2125.01, alleging that TQL’s negligent denial of a reasonable accommodation directly and proximately caused the premature birth and death of Magnolia Walsh.

Under Ohio’s wrongful death statute, liability attaches when a death is caused by a “wrongful act, neglect, or default” that would have entitled the injured party to bring an action for damages had death not ensued. In this case, the jury found that TQL’s refusal to provide a medically necessary work-from-home accommodation constituted actionable negligence and that this negligence was a proximate cause of Magnolia’s death.

The Duty of Care

The foundational question in any negligence case is whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the injured party. What this verdict establishes, at least as a matter of jury fact-finding, is that an employer may owe a duty of care not only to its employee, but to the employee’s unborn child, when the employer is on notice that its workplace decisions directly affect the health and safety of the pregnancy. The jury concluded that TQL breached this duty when it denied a physician-ordered accommodation, and that this breach proximately caused Magnolia’s premature birth and death.

This is a vast expansion of potential employer tort exposure. Historically, employers facing accommodation disputes risked statutory claims for discrimination, retaliation, or failure to accommodate, claims that carry defined remedial frameworks, including capped damages in many jurisdictions. A common-law wrongful death claim, by contrast, is an uncapped tort action. Ohio’s wrongful death statute does not impose the same compensatory damage caps that apply to certain other tort actions, and the $22.5 million verdict illustrates the magnitude of potential exposure.

Causation

Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of this case is the jury’s causation finding. The jury drew a direct causal connection between TQL’s denial of the work-from-home accommodation and the death of the baby. The plan credited the plaintiff’s evidence that forcing Walsh back into the office, against her physicians’ explicit orders, precipitated the very complications her doctors were trying to prevent. The 90/10 fault apportionment demonstrates the jury’s strong conviction regarding causation.

Why Ohio Employers Should Be Alarmed

While a jury verdict does not carry the same precedential weight as an appellate decision, Larkin v. TQL sends a message that will reverberate through every HR department and C-suite in the state. Here is why:

• Accommodation Failures May Lead to Wrongful Death Liability
  
  Before this verdict, when employers denied a pregnancy or disability accommodation, they may have had to defend against a statutory discrimination or failure-to-accommodate claim. The remedies in those actions, while significant, are tied to statutory frameworks and caps. This verdict demonstrates that where an accommodation failure results in physical harm or death, plaintiffs’ counsel can pursue uncapped common-law tort claims where the damage exposure may be far more significant.

  
  

• The Duty Extends Beyond the Employee
  
  This case effectively establishes that an employer’s duty of care in the accommodation context extends to foreseeable third parties, including the employee’s unborn child. When an employer has actual knowledge that an employee’s medical condition places a third party at risk, and that a readily available accommodation would mitigate that risk, the employer’s refusal to act may give rise to a duty-of-care obligation running to that third party. As any creative mind can see, this principle is not limited to pregnancy cases. Any accommodation scenario in which the employer is on notice that its decision could result in physical harm to the employee or others is now potentially subject to tort liability. This will likely include cases involving FMLA caregiver leave accommodations.

  
  

• “Insufficient Documentation” Is Not a Safe Harbor
  
  One of TQL’s primary defenses was that Walsh’s initial physician’s letters were insufficiently detailed, lacking a specific medical reason, physical limitations, or an end date for the accommodation. The jury rejected this defense. While employers are entitled to request adequate medical documentation to evaluate an accommodation request, this verdict warns employers that using documentation deficiencies as a pretext to deny or delay a clearly medically necessary accommodation will not shield them from liability. When two physicians are telling an employer that a pregnant employee needs to work from home to protect her high-risk pregnancy, arguing over the format of their letters may be a risk management failure.

  
  

• Forcing Leave Instead of Accommodation Backfired
  
  TQL’s alternative to the work-from-home accommodation was to offer Walsh an extended unpaid leave of absence. This approach, which effectively forced Walsh to choose between her health and her livelihood, was central to the jury’s finding of liability. Under the now-effective Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, it is explicitly unlawful to require a pregnant employee to take leave if another reasonable accommodation can be provided. While the PWFA did not apply to the 2021 events at issue, this verdict demonstrates that Ohio juries are already hostile to the practice of substituting forced leave for reasonable accommodations, even in the absence of the PWFA’s specific prohibition.

  
  

• Internal Admissions Will Be Devastating
  
  While not included in the initial recitation of facts above, the day Walsh returned to work and the day the baby died, Walsh’s husband brought it up to his own HR department, who believed TQL’s denial was wrong. That HR manager knew a TQL vice president and intervened directly. According to the lawsuit, the vice president responded: “Thank you. You just saved us a lawsuit.” The accommodation was immediately approved, but it was too late. It was that vice president’s response, “Thank you. You just saved us a lawsuit,” that demonstrated that the company knew of the accommodation denial and is the type of internal communication that turns a difficult case into a $22 million one. This statement suggested that TQL’s own leadership recognized the legal exposure created by the denial before it was reversed.

  
  

• What This Means for Accommodation Laws Such as the PWFA, ADA, the FMLA and Others
  
  The events in this case occurred in February 2021, before the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act was signed into law in December 2022 and took effect on June 27, 2023. The PWFA now provides a federal statutory framework requiring employers with 15 or more employees to provide reasonable accommodations for known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship. Under the PWFA, employers cannot require employees to take leave, paid or unpaid, if another reasonable accommodation is available.
  
  This means that for conduct occurring today, an employer like TQL would face exposure on multiple fronts simultaneously: a PWFA failure-to-accommodate claim, a potential ADA claim if the pregnancy complication constitutes a disability, a potential Title VII pregnancy discrimination claim under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and, as this case now demonstrates, a common-law wrongful death or negligence claim if the accommodation failure results in physical harm or death. The statutory and tort theories are not mutually exclusive; they stack.
  
  Specifically, the PWFA includes a clear anti-preemption provision, which states that nothing in the act should be interpreted as invalidating or limiting the powers, remedies, and procedures provided by any federal law or the laws of any state or local government that offer equal or greater protections for individuals affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s implementing regulations at 29 C.F.R. Part 1636 mirror this language.
  
  Importantly, the tort theory is not limited to failures in pregnancy accommodations. The logic of this verdict extends to any accommodation denial where an employer knows or should know that its refusal to accommodate a documented medical condition could result in foreseeable physical harm to the employee or to a third party. Consider: an employee with a cardiac condition whose physician orders reduced physical exertion, an employee with epilepsy whose doctor restricts certain work activities, or an employee with a compromised immune system whose physician recommends remote work. If an employer denies a medically supported accommodation in any of these scenarios and harm results, this verdict provides a roadmap for plaintiffs’ counsel to pursue tort claims alongside, or instead of, statutory remedies.

7 Must-Take Steps for Ohio Employers

In light of this verdict and the evolving legal landscape, employers operating in Ohio should immediately evaluate and strengthen their accommodation practices. The following measures are no longer optional; they are essential risk management imperatives.

1. Treat Every Accommodation Request as Urgent. When an employee presents a physician’s recommendation for a workplace accommodation, particularly one related to a high-risk pregnancy or a time-sensitive health condition, the interactive process must begin immediately. Delays measured in days can have life-altering consequences, as this case tragically illustrates. Slow-walking accommodation requests can lead to significant liability.
2. Do Not Use Documentation Gaps to Deny Obvious Accommodations. If a physician’s note communicates the essential medical need, even if it does not include every detail your accommodation policy technically requires, engage with the employee and the physician to obtain what you need. Do not use a missing end date or an insufficiently specific diagnosis as grounds to deny an accommodation that is plainly medically necessary. Request additional information; do not deny and wait.
3. Never Force Leave When a Reasonable Accommodation Exists. Under the PWFA, this is now a per se violation. But even before the PWFA, as this case demonstrates, an Ohio jury viewed the forced-leave-in-lieu-of-accommodation approach as negligent conduct giving rise to wrongful death liability. If the employee can perform her job from home, and her doctor says she needs to work from home, the answer cannot be “take unpaid leave or come to the office.”
4. Train Managers and HR Personnel on the Stakes. The front-line manager in this case rejected a physician’s note and punted the matter to HR. HR offered leave rather than the requested accommodation. The cycle of delay and denial that followed led to a $22.5 million verdict. Managers and HR professionals must understand that accommodation decisions carry not only statutory exposure but potential tort liability for physical harm. Every accommodation denial is now a potential wrongful death case if the facts support it.
5. Audit Your Remote Work and Accommodation Policies. If your organization has returned to a rigid in-office mandate, examine whether that policy creates unacceptable risk when applied to employees with documented medical conditions requiring remote work. A blanket “no remote work” policy that does not carve out medically necessary accommodations is a liability time bomb in the post-TQL landscape.
6. Document Everything, and Assume It Will Be Read to a Jury. Every communication regarding an accommodation request should be drafted with the understanding that it will be evidence at trial. The internal acknowledgment by a TQL executive that the denial could trigger a lawsuit was devastating evidence. Employers should create clear, contemporaneous records demonstrating a good-faith interactive process, rather than defensive communications that reveal the company knew it was making the wrong call.
7. Engage Legal Counsel Early in High-Risk Accommodation Situations. Any accommodation request involving a high-risk pregnancy, a condition with potential for serious physical harm, or a situation where the employee’s physician is actively directing the accommodation should be escalated to employment counsel immediately. The cost of early legal involvement is negligible compared to the exposure created by a denial that leads to someone getting hurt or dying.

Conclusion

For Ohio employers, this verdict fundamentally changes the calculus of accommodation decisions. The question is no longer “Could we face an EEOC charge or a discrimination lawsuit?” The question is now: “If we deny this accommodation and something goes wrong, could we face a multi-million-dollar wrongful death judgment?” The answer, after March 18, 2026, is unequivocally yes.