Jury Awards $22.5M Verdict in Pregnancy Accommodation Lawsuit

A remote work accommodation dispute turned into a wrongful death case with eight-figure liability.

In Larkin v. Total Quality Logistics, LLC, an Ohio jury found an employer’s failure to approve a work-from-home request for a high-risk pregnancy contributed to the death of a newborn. 

The jury found the employer 90% at fault, making it liable for about $22.5 million of the $25 million award. 

What Happened in Larkin v. TQL

In 2021, employee Chelsea Walsh had a high-risk pregnancy, and her doctors recommended modified bed rest and remote work.  

Walsh requested a work-from-home accommodation, but the company didn’t approve it at the time. Instead, she was directed toward taking leave.

According to the complaint, Walsh continued to seek approval to work remotely. That approval came only after outside intervention – and on the same day Walsh went into premature labor at just over 20 weeks. The child, Magnolia Walsh, did not survive.

The lawsuit was brought by the child’s estate, with Andrew Larkin serving as administrator.

Why the Jury Found Liability

The plaintiff’s argument focused on timing and medical necessity. This was not framed as a preference for remote work. It was positioned as a medically required accommodation that the employer failed to implement.

“This is a heartbreaking outcome for a young family,” said Matthew C. Metzger of Wolterman Law Office, LPA, co-counsel for the Walsh family. “The evidence showed that Chelsea Walsh was following her doctors’ instructions for a high-risk pregnancy and simply asked to work from home. The jury found that TQL’s denial of that reasonable request led to the death of her daughter.”

The jury accepted that framing. It found the delay in approving remote work was a substantial factor in the premature birth and death, supporting liability on the wrongful death claim.  The 90% allocation of fault to the employer indicates that the jury saw the workplace decision, not just underlying medical risk, as the primary driver. 

In a statement, TQL expressed sympathy for the family’s loss but said it disagrees with the verdict and how the facts were characterized at trial. The company has indicated it is evaluating legal options, which may include an appeal.

Why This Remote Work Accommodation Case Stands Out

Most pregnancy accommodation cases focus on compliance, documentation or damages tied to lost wages. This case shows how risk can extend beyond traditional accommodation claims. The jury focused on:  

• Whether remote work aligned with the employee’s documented medical restrictions
• How the timing of the employer’s response affected the employee’s condition
• Whether the accommodation decision was a substantial factor in the outcome

What This Means for Employers

In this case, a family experienced a profound loss, and workplace decisions became part of that story.

When medical risks are documented, an employer’s response to an accommodation request can have consequences far beyond attendance or productivity. That interactive process then appears directly in the record. Accommodation requests, responses, internal discussions and timing all become evidence. Delays or stalled movement among HR, management, and leave administration can work against the employer when they signify a lack of urgency.

Remote work is evaluated differently in this context. Once tied to a documented medical limitation, the question becomes whether the employee could perform the essential functions of the role while working from home at that time.

Policy sets the framework, but employment law decisions still require judgment. Employers must determine whether the requested arrangement is workable, identify alternatives that address the same restriction and determine how to respond when medical guidance points in a particular direction.

How to Handle Medically Supported Pregnancy Accommodation Requests

Employers need to treat accommodation requests tied to medical restrictions as part of operational workflows instead of ad hoc decisions.

That means assigning a single owner accountable for the request from intake through final decision, with authority to coordinate across HR, management and leave administration.

Response timing needs to be measured and managed. Intake, review of medical documentation, follow-up questions and decision points should follow defined timelines — not informal handoffs.

Decision paths should be explicit. Who evaluates essential functions, who assesses feasibility, and who signs off should be clear before a request comes in, not figured out during the process.

Documentation needs to capture the reasoning, not just the outcome. The record should reflect what information was considered, what alternatives were evaluated, and why the final decision aligned with the medical restrictions.