Blog Posts
Labor and Employment
Jury Awards Employee $22.5 Million For Employer’s Improper Denial of Pregnancy Accommodation Request
When dealing with injured, sick, or pregnant employees, employers must exercise extreme diligence when denying an accommodation request; it is not as clear-cut as it might appear. The courts (and juries) tend to favor employees. Employers are simply playing with Fire with a capital “F” if an accommodation is denied without first consulting with experienced labor counsel. Take the Ohio state court case discussed below. On March 18, 2026, an Ohio jury awarded an employee $22.5 million dollars for her wrongful death claim against her employer for the loss of her child arising from the denial of her request for a pregnancy-related work accommodation. The jury found that the employer’s initial denial, of only two days, from her work-from-home request, was a substantial factor resulting in her baby’s death. The employee, a fairly new claims associate for a logistics company, was prescribed bed rest by her doctor after she suffered a serious complication related to her pregnancy; this was not in dispute. When she requested a temporary work-from-home accommodation, as was allowed to others, and provided supporting medical documentation, the company denied the request. Instead, it placed her on unpaid leave of absence. Because she and her family depended upon her paycheck and continued medical benefits, she was unwilling to forgo any paychecks and the employee quickly returned to in-office work. At the end of her second day, after the work-from home-denial, the employer reconsidered and said she could work from home. However, unfortunately, that night, after the second day of in-office work, she suffered severe medical complications resulting in her child being born too early; six hours after being born, her baby girl died. The employer’s counsel, we believe, of course, with hindsight, chose a disingenuous defense strategy that obviously offended and inflamed the jury, resulting in the huge verdict. Employer’s counsel conflated the employee having her mother drive her to work so she could ask her supervisor if she could work from home (which the supervisor said she could) and to pick up her computer so she could work at home, by saying she came to work and worked that day of her own volition. Then, when the human resources department overruled the supervisor and denied the employee’s request to work-from-home, it placed her on unpaid leave. When the employee, needing her pay and medical benefits, felt she had to come into work, the employer’s counsel faulted the employee for coming into the office rather than staying on unpaid leave. It became clear that the employer made an error and wrongfully considered the employee’s request as one for unpaid leave of absence. The baby’s estate filed a wrongful death lawsuit in February of 2023: Larkin v. Total Quality Logistics, LLC, (Hamilton County, Ohio). There is no reported decision, and the above alleged facts have been assembled from copies of the complaint and motions filed in the case; it will likely be appealed. We highlight this extreme case because it shows the real danger and consequences of the improper handling of an employee’s good-faith request for a reasonable work accommodation. If the employee suffers physical harm as a result of the denial, or even the unreasonable delay in approval, the employer may be on the hook not only for lost wages, but also the damages that flow from the denial/delay, including wrongful death, medical bills and costs, and pain and suffering. As this employee was relatively new and did not appear to even qualify for FMLA leave, which is unpaid leave, the employer was offering a leave of absence instead of allowing the employee to work from home. However, she had other causes of action under federal and state law. Under the Americans with Disability Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq., the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), 29 U.S.C. § 2601, et seq. and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), 42 U.S.C. 2000gg et seq., covered employers are required to assess, through an interactive process with a covered employee, whether a suggested accommodation may allow an employee to fulfill their required job duties in a manner least burdensome on the business. To legally justify denying a reasonable accommodation request, an employer must demonstrate the accommodation would impose an undue hardship, meaning a substantial cost or difficulty, as determined by factors such as the nature and cost of the accommodation, the employer’s financial resources, and the impact on business operations. An employer does not have to create a new position for the employee, but where the disabled/pregnant employee could perform the essential functions of the job by working from home, an employer (especially a large employer, as this was) will have a difficult time justifying a denial. This case serves as a reminder that the stakes of these employment decisions are very high, and mistakes can lead to drastic consequences for both employee and employer. Employers should review employee job descriptions for accuracy and train supervisors on the accommodation process and what is required under the ADA, FMLA, and PWFA. As always, documentation is key. Experienced labor and employment counsel can help successfully navigate this process and should be contacted as soon as there is any discussion about the denial of an accommodation. A short phone call or two (or emails) with labor counsel before a denial could greatly increase the chances of avoiding liability, six figures of attorney’s fees, and serve to avoid harming an employee and his/her family.
April 16, 2026
Labor and Employment
FTC's Final Rule: Understanding the Ban on Non-Compete Clauses
On April 23, 2024, the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced its final rule on non-competition clauses, voting 3-2 to adopt the final regulations, known as the “Non-Compete Clause Rule.” This rule marks a significant milestone, establishing a comprehensive ban on non-compete agreements. The decision comes fifteen months after the FTC released its proposed rule in January 2023. The final rule will not take effect until 120 days after publication in the Federal Register, and lawsuits have already been brought challenging the authority of the FTC to issue such a broad rule. Nonetheless, it is crucial for employers to understand the broad requirements, the exceptions, and how to protect legitimate business interests in the wake of the FTC’s rule. The rule applies to all businesses and individuals within the FTC’s jurisdiction, which covers all types of companies in nearly all industries. However, certain entities fall outside the FTC’s jurisdiction and, therefore, are exempt from the ban. These include banks, savings and loan institutions, federal credit unions, common carriers, air carriers, and certain non-profits. The rule restricts businesses and individuals from including non-competition language in future employment agreements, policies, handbooks, or websites for their workers. Additionally, it extends to non-solicitation and confidentiality agreements that function as de facto non-competition agreements. Importantly, this prohibition applies to all workers (not just “employees”), including independent contractors, interns, externs, volunteers, apprentices, and others. According to the rule’s preamble, “it is an unfair method of competition—and therefore a violation of section 5—for employers to, inter alia, enter into non-compete clauses with workers on or after the final rule’s effective date.” Once the rule takes effect, agreements and policies containing non-compete language will become unenforceable, with the only exception being for “Senior Executives.” The rule defines “Senior Executives” as a worker earning more than $151,164 annually and holding a “policy-making position.” Compensation can include salary, commissions, performance bonuses, and any other agreed-upon forms of compensation, excluding benefits or board and lodging. If the individual only worked part of the year, their earned compensation can be annualized to determine whether they meet the threshold. Policy-making positions include the president, CEO, or individuals with authority to make company-wide policy decisions. While “Senior Executives” will not have their non-competes retroactively voided like other workers, the rule prohibits covered businesses and individuals from entering into such agreements with future workers, even if they qualify as “Senior Executives.” Once in effect, the rule will also require businesses and individuals to notify workers of the ban and rescind existing non-competes (except those with senior executives). Model language for an appropriate notice can be accessed at Noncompete Rule | Federal Trade Commission (ftc.gov). Consequently, the bulk of existing restrictions will become unenforceable upon the rule’s enactment. The FTC anticipates the rule will increase employee earnings by at least $400 billion over the next decade. While the rule fundamentally prohibits all non-compete agreements between businesses and their workers, exceptions exist for non-competes between businesses and between the seller and buyer of a company. Specifically, the FTC’s rule prohibits anything that restricts, penalizes, or prevents a worker from pursuing a different job or starting a business after leaving their current job. That includes: Prohibitive terms and conditions expressly saying that a worker cannot get another job, such as with a competitor or embark on a business venture; Terms and conditions mandating financial penalties for workers who get another job or start a business; or Terms and conditions that aren’t labeled as non-competes but are so restrictive that they effectively prevent a worker from getting a new job or starting a business. This may include overly broad confidentiality clauses, which could potentially violate the National Labor Relations Act, Employers are advised to seek guidance from experienced employment counsel to ensure compliance. As noted at the outset, given the extremely broad nature of the rule, legal challenges are anticipated, potentially leading to further delays or permanently preventing the rule’s enactment. We will continue monitoring developments and providing updates accordingly. In the meantime, employers are encouraged to take advantage of this period by: Evaluating and analyzing existing agreements to ensure certain protections are in place in anticipation of the rule’s implementation; and Consulting with trusted legal counsel to devise a communication strategy regarding the notice requirement for impacted workers, ensuring effectiveness and compliance with legal standards. If you have any questions or need assistance with navigating these changes, please reach out to Gabriel Celii and Sarah Goodman
April 25, 2024
Labor and Employment
Pennsylvania Enacts Law Requiring Mandatory Police Officer Background Disclosures
Pennsylvania Act 57 of 2020 (enacted July 14, 2020) is a game changer in terms of what a Township Police Department must make public and disclose to prospective Police Employers concerning a former or present Township Police Officer. It is long, long overdue and should be welcome by all Townships, Police Officers and Police Unions. It makes all the sense in the world that before a Police Officer is hired, given lifetime tenure, a gun and the power to take life and liberty that the Township and Police Department know everything they can about the officer including all past discipline. The law now requires the Municipal Police Officer Education and Training Commission (“Commission”) to develop a database to hold separation records of all "law enforcement officers" in the Commonwealth (defined as "peace officers" in Title 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 501). The act requires the database to be operational by July 14, 2021 and temporary regulations that were established on March 14, 2021 [Pennsylvania Bulletin (pacodeandbulletin.gov)]. All too often Township Police Departments in their zeal to get rid of a bad officer, for expediency purposes, will agree to expunge an officer’s disciplinary record or let him/her resign in good standing before disciplinary charges are filed, agreeing to not disclose that discipline when the officer applies to another Police Department. The new Department, however, has no idea it is getting a “bad apple.” It is a vicious cycle that, if not broken, harms all Township Police Departments and the public they are entrusted to protect. While a Police Chief is thrilled to be rid of a problem officer, the Department could fall victim, if the next officer hired had his/her prior disciplinary record cleansed as well. Everyone should have empathy and consideration for others who could end up with the problem officers if proper disclosures are not made. This new law finally attempts to address this very serious issue brought about by the recent national publicity about problem officers and the desire for more public transparency and accountability. We expect that more states, if they have not already, will adopt similar legislation in the wake of public backlash against problem police officers. Under this law the Township must proactively maintain and make certain employment records available on the Township website for the public and other Prospective Employer Police Departments to view. Further, it provides a process whereby a prospective employer can go to court if the prior employer stonewalls on providing documents, a process that did not exist before. Municipal employers should consult experienced employment counsel for any assistance needed in complying with the new requirements. Any questions please contact, Gabriel V. Celii at Offit/Kurman, gcelii@offitkurman.com.
May 5, 2021
