Ohio Jury Awards $22.5 Million in Pregnancy Accommodation/Wrongful Death Case

A recent Ohio jury verdict underscores the legal and operational risks employers face when responding to accommodation requests involving pregnancy-related medical conditions. In Larkin v. Total Quality Logistics, LLC (Hamilton County, Ohio), a jury awarded approximately $22.5 million in a wrongful death action arising from an employer’s denial of a work-from-home request.

Factual Background

According to the complaint, the employee, a claims associate for a logistics company, was hired in January 2021 while pregnant. In February 2021, she experienced complications related to an “incompetent cervix” and underwent an emergency medical procedure intended to prevent premature labor. Her physician directed her to remain on modified bed rest and recommended that she work from home.

The employee requested a remote work arrangement so that she could comply with medical restrictions while maintaining income and anticipated eligibility for employer-sponsored health insurance. Although her request was reportedly supported by medical documentation and remote work had been permitted in certain circumstances, the employer did not approve the accommodation.

Instead, the employer provided leave of absence paperwork, which the employee’s physician completed. Based on that paperwork, the employer placed the employee on unpaid leave and informed her that she was not permitted to work. The employee disputed the leave of absence status and reiterated that she sought to continue working remotely.

After submitting additional medical documentation expressly recommending remote work, the employee was informed that her options were to either remain on unpaid leave or return to in-person work. She returned to the workplace for several days, citing financial and insurance concerns. The employer later approved remote work following an internal escalation, but that approval came after the employee had already resumed in-office work.

On the same day remote work was approved, the employee experienced health complications, was hospitalized, and delivered a child at approximately 20 weeks’ gestation. The child was born alive but died shortly thereafter.

Procedural Posture and Verdict

The estate of the child filed a wrongful death action, alleging that the employer’s refusal to permit remote work and its handling of the accommodation request caused or contributed to the premature birth and death. The complaint also alleged that the employer failed to appropriately consider or process the requested accommodation and instead defaulted to leave.

Following trial, a jury found in favor of the plaintiff and awarded approximately $22.5 million in damages. Media reports indicate the jury attributed substantial fault to the employer.

Key Issues Highlighted

Although framed as a wrongful death claim, the case implicates several employment law considerations relevant to employers:

• Accommodation Process: The distinction between a request for accommodation and a request for leave was central. The fact that the employer used leave of absence paperwork rather than performing an accommodation analysis was a focal point of the allegations.
• Interactive Process: The complaint alleges limited engagement with the employee regarding potential accommodations and a categorical rejection of remote work.
• Consistency of Practices: Evidence that remote work had been permitted in other contexts was cited to challenge the employer’s position.
• Business Justification: The case highlights the importance of clearly documenting legitimate, job-related reasons for denying remote work, particularly when medical restrictions are involved.
• Risk of Nontraditional Claims: The verdict illustrates how workplace decisions may be reframed as tort claims (e.g., wrongful death), expanding potential exposure beyond traditional employment statutes.

Bottom Line

This case serves as a reminder that accommodation requests, particularly those involving pregnancy-related conditions, should be evaluated through a structured, well-documented process that distinguishes between leave and accommodation and includes meaningful engagement with the employee. Employers should ensure consistency in how remote work is evaluated and be prepared to articulate business reasons for denial.

At the same time, the verdict is not necessarily the final word. The employer has indicated it may appeal, and the trial court may reduce the damages award. Nonetheless, the case highlights the significant exposure that can arise when accommodation decisions are perceived as inflexible or insufficiently individualized.

Please reach out to the authors with any questions or for assistance needed with any employment matters in your workplace.