$22.5 Million Verdict: What the TQL Pregnancy Case Means for Your Rights
In March 2026, a Hamilton County, Ohio jury awarded $22.5 million against Total Quality Logistics after the company denied a pregnant worker's request to work from home. Chelsea Walsh had a high-risk pregnancy. Her doctors said she needed remote work. TQL pushed her into unpaid leave instead. By the time the company finally approved work from home, it was too late.
This is the largest pregnancy accommodation verdict since the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act took effect. The facts predate the PWFA (the events occurred in 2021), but the case is a direct illustration of the employer behavior the PWFA was written to stop. If you are pregnant and worried about how your employer will handle an accommodation request, this case shows what the law expects and what happens when an employer gets it wrong.
On this page
What Happened to Chelsea Walsh
Chelsea Walsh worked as a Lead Operator at Total Quality Logistics (TQL), one of the largest freight brokerage firms in the country. She was based at TQL's Portland, Oregon facility.
In 2021, Walsh became pregnant. The pregnancy was high-risk. Her doctors recommended bed rest and remote work to reduce physical strain and protect the pregnancy. Walsh brought this medical documentation to her employer and asked to work from home.
TQL did not evaluate the remote work request on its merits. Instead, the company diverted Walsh's accommodation request into unpaid leave. Rather than asking whether her job duties could be performed from home, TQL treated the situation as a leave issue. Walsh was taken off work.
The process dragged on. TQL eventually approved Walsh to work from home, but by that point, the delay had real consequences. On the same day TQL finally approved the remote work accommodation, Walsh delivered prematurely at 20 weeks of pregnancy.
Her daughter, Magnolia, did not survive.
Walsh brought suit against TQL under Title VII's Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Oregon state anti-discrimination law. The case went to trial in Hamilton County, Ohio (where TQL is headquartered) in March 2026.
What TQL Did Wrong
The jury found that TQL bore 90% of the fault. The company's handling of Walsh's request failed at every step where the law required action. Here is what went wrong.
Failed to engage in the interactive process
When an employee requests a medical accommodation, the employer is legally required to engage in a good-faith back-and-forth conversation about what accommodations are possible. This is called the "interactive process." TQL did not do this. Instead of asking Walsh about her job duties, exploring whether remote work was feasible, or suggesting alternative accommodations, the company pushed her request directly into the leave track.
Substituted leave for a real accommodation
Walsh asked to work from home. TQL responded by placing her on unpaid leave. This is exactly the kind of conduct the law prohibits. Unpaid leave is not an accommodation when the employee has requested (and can perform) a different arrangement that would let her keep working. The employer chose the easiest path for itself, not the one that preserved Walsh's ability to do her job.
Delayed until it was too late
TQL did eventually approve Walsh to work from home. But the approval came on the same day she delivered at 20 weeks. The delay itself caused harm. In accommodation law, unnecessary delay can be just as damaging as an outright denial. When a medical condition is urgent, every day of inaction carries risk.
The pattern here is one that employment lawyers see frequently: an employer receives a medical accommodation request and, instead of evaluating it, channels the employee into leave. It is less work for HR. It avoids the question of whether the accommodation is feasible. And it puts the burden entirely on the employee. In Walsh's case, the cost of that decision was catastrophic.
The Verdict: $22.5 Million
The Hamilton County jury awarded $25 million in total damages. It assigned 90% of the fault to TQL and 10% to other factors. That means TQL's share of the verdict is $22.5 million.
$25M
Total jury award
90%
Fault assigned to TQL
$22.5M
TQL's share
This is the largest pregnancy accommodation verdict since the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act was signed into law. While the facts of the case predate the PWFA (the events occurred in 2021, and the PWFA took effect in June 2023), the case was tried under Title VII, the ADA, and Oregon state law. The jury's message was clear: employers who dodge accommodation requests and default to unpaid leave face serious consequences.
The size of the verdict matters beyond this one case. It signals to employers across the country that juries will hold them accountable when they fail to take pregnancy accommodation requests seriously. And it arrives at a moment when the PWFA has given workers even stronger protections than the laws that were available to Walsh in 2021.
TQL may appeal. Verdicts of this size are frequently challenged on post-trial motions or appeal. Regardless of what happens with the appeal, the legal standard the jury applied is sound: if an employer has a pregnant worker with a doctor's recommendation for a specific accommodation, the employer must evaluate that request in good faith. Pushing the employee into unpaid leave instead is not good faith.
Your Rights Under the PWFA
The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act took effect on June 27, 2023. It applies to employers with 15 or more employees. If a similar situation happened today, Walsh would have even stronger legal tools than the ones she used at trial. Here is what the PWFA requires.
Employers must provide reasonable accommodations
Your employer must make reasonable accommodations for known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions. This includes conditions like morning sickness, gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, bed rest orders, and recovery from childbirth or miscarriage.
No need to prove you can do all essential functions
Unlike the ADA, the PWFA does not require you to show that you can perform all essential functions of your job while receiving the accommodation. If your limitation is temporary and you need a short-term modification, your employer must accommodate you even if it means you cannot perform every duty during that period.
Employers must engage in the interactive process
When you request an accommodation, your employer is required to have a good-faith conversation with you about what you need and what is feasible. They cannot ignore your request, stall, or skip straight to a denial. This is the step TQL failed.
Employers cannot force you to take leave
The PWFA specifically prohibits employers from requiring you to take leave (paid or unpaid) if another reasonable accommodation exists that would let you keep working. This is one of the most important provisions in the law. It directly addresses the exact conduct TQL engaged in: pushing a worker into leave instead of evaluating her actual request.
Retaliation is prohibited
Your employer cannot fire you, demote you, cut your hours, or take any adverse action against you for requesting a pregnancy accommodation. If they do, that is a separate violation.
For a complete breakdown of the PWFA, including how it interacts with the FMLA and ADA, see our full PWFA guide.
What Accommodations You Can Request
The PWFA does not limit you to a fixed list of accommodations. Any modification that addresses your pregnancy-related limitation and does not cause undue hardship to your employer can qualify. That said, the EEOC's regulations and guidance identify several common accommodations that employers should be prepared to provide.
Remote work was the specific accommodation at issue in the TQL case. It is also one of the most commonly requested pregnancy accommodations, especially for workers whose doctors recommend bed rest or reduced physical activity. If your job can be done remotely (even partially), your employer must seriously evaluate that option before defaulting to leave.
What to Do If Your Employer Denies an Accommodation
If your employer refuses your pregnancy accommodation request, stalls the process, or pushes you into leave instead of evaluating your request, take these steps to protect yourself.
Get your doctor's recommendation in writing
Ask your healthcare provider for a written note that specifies your condition, the recommended accommodation (remote work, reduced lifting, modified schedule, etc.), and the expected duration. Be specific. "Patient needs to work from home due to high-risk pregnancy, recommended through delivery" is stronger than a vague note about "reduced stress."
Submit your request in writing
Email your manager and HR. State that you are requesting a reasonable accommodation under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. Describe the accommodation you need. Attach your doctor's note. This creates a documented record with dates and timestamps. If your employer later claims they did not receive your request, you have proof.
Document every response (or lack of response)
Save every email, message, and document related to your request. Forward copies to a personal email address outside your employer's systems. If conversations happen in person or by phone, follow up with a written summary: "Per our conversation today, you stated that..." Note dates and who you spoke with.
Follow up if your employer stalls
If a week passes without a response, send a written follow-up referencing your original request and the date you submitted it. Delays count. Courts have treated unreasonable delay as a failure to accommodate. Each follow-up you send creates additional evidence of the delay.
File a charge with the EEOC
If your employer denies your accommodation, forces you onto leave, retaliates against you, or refuses to engage in the interactive process, you can file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC. You have 300 days from the violation to file in most states (180 days in states without a fair employment practices agency). File online at publicportal.eeoc.gov.
File with your state agency too
Many states have their own anti-discrimination agencies that accept pregnancy accommodation complaints. In some states, the deadline is different from the EEOC's. Filing at both the federal and state level gives you layered protection. Check our state law guide to find your state's agency.
Return-to-Office Mandates and Pregnancy
The TQL verdict lands in the middle of a national wave of return-to-office mandates. Large employers across industries are ordering workers back to the office full time. Some are eliminating remote work entirely.
If you are pregnant and your employer has issued an RTO mandate, you need to know this: a blanket return-to-office policy does not override the PWFA. Your employer still must evaluate individual accommodation requests. An RTO mandate is a workplace policy. The PWFA is a federal law. The law wins.
This means that even if your company has announced "everyone must return to the office by [date]," they are still required to engage in the interactive process if you request a pregnancy accommodation. If your doctor says you need to work from home due to a high-risk pregnancy, your employer must evaluate that request on its own merits. They cannot simply point to the RTO policy and deny it.
RTO policies do not exempt employers from the PWFA
A company-wide mandate to return to the office is an internal policy decision. The PWFA is a federal statute. Employers cannot use an internal policy to override a statutory obligation to accommodate pregnant workers.
Each accommodation request must be evaluated individually
Even during an RTO rollout, your employer must assess your specific request based on your medical condition, your job duties, and whether remote work (or another accommodation) is feasible. A blanket "no exceptions" policy for pregnant workers is likely illegal.
Document the conflict between the RTO mandate and your medical needs
If your employer cites an RTO policy as the reason for denying your accommodation, document that response in writing. This is strong evidence in an EEOC charge or lawsuit. It shows the employer prioritized a policy over a legal obligation.
The TQL case is a preview of what can happen when employers treat accommodation requests as an inconvenience rather than a legal obligation. As more companies push RTO mandates, expect more conflicts with pregnancy accommodation rights. The law is on your side. Use it.
Frequently Asked Questions
The PWFA applies to employers with 15 or more employees, including private companies, state and local governments, Congress, federal agencies, and employment agencies. If your employer has at least 15 workers, the PWFA covers you. This is the same threshold as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
No. Under the PWFA, an employer cannot force you to take leave (paid or unpaid) if another reasonable accommodation exists that would let you keep working. This was one of the central issues in the TQL case. The employer pushed Chelsea Walsh into unpaid leave instead of evaluating her request to work from home. If your employer offers only leave when you have asked for a different accommodation, that may violate the PWFA.
Your employer must engage in an interactive process to determine whether remote work is feasible for your role. They cannot issue a blanket denial without evaluating your specific situation. If your job duties can be performed remotely (even partially), and your doctor has recommended it, your employer has a strong obligation to consider it. The employer must show that remote work would cause an "undue hardship" to deny it. The burden of proof is on the employer, not on you.
The PWFA does not set a specific number of days for your employer to respond, but the EEOC's regulations say the interactive process should begin "promptly." Unnecessary delay can itself be a violation. Courts have found that delays of weeks or months, especially when the employee's medical condition is urgent, can constitute a failure to accommodate. If your employer is stalling, put your follow-up in writing and note the dates of each communication.
No. The PWFA explicitly prohibits retaliation against workers who request or use pregnancy accommodations. This includes firing, demotion, reduced hours, negative performance reviews, and any other adverse action taken because you exercised your rights. Title VII's Pregnancy Discrimination Act and many state laws also prohibit retaliation. If you believe you were retaliated against for requesting an accommodation, you can file a charge with the EEOC within 300 days of the adverse action.
Check Your Pregnancy Rights at Work
The PWFA, FMLA, ADA, and state laws may all apply to your situation. Our free rights check evaluates your full protections in a few minutes. No data is stored.
Check Your Rights Now