A jury recently handed down a $22.5 million verdict against TQL, a logistics company based in Ohio, in a lawsuit brought by a former employee. You may have seen the headlines, but what you may not have seen is a clear breakdown of what actually happened, what the law actually requires, and what every manager and HR leader should know. That's this week's blog and video.

A note before the video and rest of the blog: This case involves the loss of an infant, so please skip if needed. And as is true with many employment verdicts: this one may be appealed, and TQL has stated they disagree with the outcome. Some details referenced here come from allegations in the complaint - what was presented to the jury - not necessarily final legal findings.

The Case Background

An employee named Chelsea was hired by TQL in January 2021 for their claims department. She disclosed her pregnancy during the interview process.

Just a few weeks into the job, she began experiencing pregnancy complications. Her doctor requested she be allowed to work from home. Her manager allegedly told her that could be accommodated and that he'd start the paperwork. That's where some of the most notable aspects of the case take a turn.

According to the complaint, HR provided leave-of-absence paperwork instead of work-from-home accommodation paperwork - two very different documents with very different implications. Her remote work request was denied. The alleged HR policy: no one works from home for that length of time, because they were expected to work in the office. This was February 2021, less than a year after the COVID-19 pandemic started, when others in her department had allegedly previously worked remotely.

Her husband, separately, told his company's HR manager what his wife was going through. That HR manager happened to know an executive at TQL and called them and told them they were making a mistake by not accommodating the employee's work from home request. The TQL leader's alleged response: "Thank you. You just saved us a lawsuit."

The next morning, TQL reversed course. But that evening, Chelsea went into premature labor. Her daughter, Magnolia, was born and passed away shortly after birth. Chelsea was discharged from the hospital on a Friday. She returned to work the following Monday.

Weeks later, after disclosing she was speaking with an attorney, she was allegedly asked whether she still wanted to be there and told that if she couldn't move past the work-from-home denial, she might not succeed at TQL. She soon left the organization, and soon after that, filed the lawsuit that led to the jury's verdict of $22.5 million. 

That verdict might just apply to TQL, but there are lessons for every organization's HR and managers.

 1. Know What Pregnancy Law Actually Requires

There are a lot of employers - and a lot of managers and even HR professionals - who still don't have a clear picture of what pregnancy protections require. In the U.S., that includes the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, FMLA, the ADA, and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), which significantly expanded the requirement to provide reasonable accommodations for pregnancy, childbirth and related conditions. And that's before you get to state and local law, let alone laws in different countries globally, all of which can go further.

One of the most common and costly mix-ups: the difference between a leave of absence and a work accommodation.

Leave takes someone out of work. An accommodation keeps them working - just in a way that meets their medical needs. Handing someone leave paperwork when they asked to keep working from home changes what they're entitled to, what the process is, and can (even unintentionally) send a message about how you support your employees as people.

If you're not sure of the difference, that's often a training gap. But it's one that needs to be closed.

2. Hard-and-Fast Rules Without Considering Exceptions Are a Liability

Having policies and being fair matter. But a blanket rule - "no one works from home, full stop" - applied rigidly, regardless of circumstances including medical accommodations, isn't protecting your organization. It's exposing it.

The question isn't whether you have a policy. It's whether your people know how to apply judgment when a policy meets a real human situation.

3. What Happens at Work Doesn't Stay There

The detail that I kept going back to: Chelsea's husband talked to the HR manager at the company he worked for about what his wife was going through. That person happened to know someone at TQL and allegedly made a phone call urging the company to act differently.

Your employees have spouses, partners, family members and friends. They are telling those people what's happening at work. The question isn't whether the story is being told. It's what the story says about you and your organization. 

4. Tone and Written Communication Have Weight

In this case, two HR employees were individually added as defendants. They were ultimately dismissed - but the fact that they were named is worth paying attention to.

An internal email between HR team members became a deposition exhibit. It included a smiley face emoji next to the line: "I talked to Chelsea" - followed by notes about how she didn't take the denial of her work-from-home request well.

A smiley face isn't illegal. But in the context of how an employee was treated during one of the most painful experiences of a human life, that email - read by a jury - can read very differently than the sender meant in the moment.

Internal messages that feel like ordinary work banter read very differently when a third party sees them, especially when they're about someone going through a horrible personal experience. What you write isn't just communication. In litigation, it can be evidence of how you felt about a situation.

The Bottom Line

Multi-million dollar verdicts get headlines. But the lesson here is bigger than "don't make HR mistakes" or "don't put things in writing."

One takeaway is that empathy isn't a value statement on a website. It shows up in real communications and actions. From paperwork mixups to having someone return to work just days after a devastating personal loss. 

Train your managers and HR teams - not just on the requirements of laws and policies, but on what to do when a real human being is sitting across from them going through something challenging. Those situations can be complicated and emotional, and also legally significant all at the same time. That's exactly why training on judgment matters.

If you're a manager: Know the basics of pregnancy accommodations and leave - and know when to loop in HR and how to respond in the moment. When someone comes to you with a medical need, your first move should rarely be a flat "no." It should normally be "let me find out what we can do."

If you're in HR: Make sure your managers understand the difference between an accommodation and a leave of absence, and that your policies allow for some human judgment. And make sure you’re also training managers and all team members on thoughtful communication and consideration.