Work-from-home lawsuits have become one of the fastest-moving areas of employment law, with pregnant workers, employees with disabilities, federal civil servants, and remote staffers seeking expense reimbursement all turning to the courts. The cases are producing uneven results: a $22.5 million jury verdict against one freight brokerage, a federal appeals court ruling that full-time telework is “rarely” a reasonable accommodation, arbitrator wins for federal unions, and six- and seven-figure settlements over unpaid home internet bills. Together, they are drawing the real legal boundaries of remote work years after the pandemic made it routine.
The $22.5 Million TQL Verdict
In March 2026, a Hamilton County, Ohio jury returned a $25 million verdict against freight brokerage Total Quality Logistics in Larkin v. Total Quality Logistics, LLC, finding the company’s refusal to let a pregnant claims associate work from home was a substantial factor in her newborn’s death. The jury apportioned 90 percent of the fault to TQL, producing a $22.5 million judgment. The court denied punitive damages, ruling they were unavailable in a purely wrongful death action under Ohio law.
The employee had asked to work remotely because of a medical condition during her pregnancy. TQL denied the request and placed her on unpaid leave. She returned to the office, and the company later approved remote work, but she went into premature labor and lost her baby the same day she was finally allowed to work from home.1Fox 19. TQL Must Pay $22.5M in Newborn’s Death After Mother Denied Work From Home Request2Ogletree Deakins. Ohio Jury Verdict Highlights Risks in Denying Pregnancy Accommodations TQL spokesperson Julia Daugherty said the company disagreed with the verdict and was “evaluating legal options.”
Pregnancy Accommodation Claims and Telework
The TQL case was filed before the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act took effect on June 27, 2023, but the federal law now gives pregnancy-related accommodation claims a far more explicit statutory foundation. The PWFA requires employers with 15 or more employees to provide reasonable accommodations for known limitations related to pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions unless doing so would impose an undue hardship. The EEOC’s final regulation, effective June 18, 2024, expressly lists telework as a potential reasonable accommodation.3U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. What You Should Know About the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act
The PWFA reaches further than the Americans with Disabilities Act in one critical respect: it covers pregnancy-related conditions even when they don’t rise to the level of an ADA disability, and it allows the temporary removal of essential job functions as an accommodation. Employers who stall on the required interactive process can face liability for unjustified delays alone.2Ogletree Deakins. Ohio Jury Verdict Highlights Risks in Denying Pregnancy Accommodations The EEOC began enforcement suits under the PWFA in September 2024.4U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. EEOC Sues Two Employers Under Pregnant Workers Fairness Act
Disability Discrimination and Remote Work Denials
Outside the pregnancy context, whether an employer violates the ADA by refusing remote work depends heavily on the specific job and the specific disability. Courts have split.
EEOC Enforcement
In September 2024, the EEOC sued Osmose Utilities Services, Inc. in the Northern District of Georgia, alleging the company violated the ADA by denying a stroke survivor’s request to work from home. The employee, a One Call Locator, had previously performed the job remotely during an office relocation. The agency said Osmose refused to articulate any undue hardship and fired her after questioning her medical absences.5U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. EEOC Sues Osmose Utilities Services for Disability Discrimination and Retaliation As of early 2026, both sides had filed motions for summary judgment before Judge Michael L. Brown.6PACER Monitor. EEOC v. Osmose Utilities Services, Inc.
A separate EEOC action against Total Systems Services, LLC ended in a $65,000 settlement after the agency alleged the Georgia-based payments processor denied a customer service representative’s request to work from home during 2020 because of heightened COVID-19 risk. The EEOC said the company applied a blanket policy to its customer service workers rather than conducting the individualized assessment the ADA requires.7Government Executive. Lawsuit Claims DOJ Retaliating Against Employees With Disabilities Who Request Telework
The Fifth Circuit’s Limit on Full-Time Remote Work
On May 8, 2026, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals handed employers significant ammunition in Hayes v. GStek, Inc. An IT systems administrator working for a government contractor wanted full-time remote work. GStek offered a hybrid schedule of two to three days per week at home. The employee insisted on working entirely from home.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal of his ADA claims, holding that regular in-person attendance is presumed to be an essential function of most jobs and that “full-time teleworking is rarely a reasonable accommodation.” The court rejected the argument that pandemic-era remote arrangements had permanently redefined job requirements, and it found that GStek satisfied its obligations by offering the hybrid alternative.8Foley & Lardner. Recent Federal Appeals Court Decision Reiterates That Full-Time Remote Work Is Rarely Reasonable Accommodation
Denial Alone May Not Be Discrimination, But It Can Be Retaliation
In Ramirez v. New York City Department of Social Services, the Southern District of New York ruled on January 2, 2026, that denying an employee’s request to continue working from home does not, by itself, amount to disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act. Judge Arun Subramanian found no evidence that the employee was ordered back to the office because of her disability. The court let her retaliation claim proceed to trial, recognizing that denying an accommodation request can be retaliatory even when it isn’t discriminatory. The case settled in May 2026.9PACER Monitor. Ramirez v. City of New York et al.
Federal Return-to-Office Challenges
President Trump’s January 2025 memorandum directing federal employees back to the office set off a wave of legal challenges from unions and individual workers.
Union Arbitration Wins
Federal unions argued the directive could not override existing collective bargaining agreements that guaranteed telework. Arbitrators largely agreed.
- Arbitrator Michael J. Falvo ruled in January 2026 that HHS committed an unfair labor practice by unilaterally terminating remote and telework agreements protected under a five-year collective bargaining agreement with the National Treasury Employees Union, and ordered the agreements reinstated. A separate arbitrator found that CMS violated its duty to bargain over the effects of the mandate on employees’ work-life balance.10Federal News Network. Trump’s Return-to-Office Memo Doesn’t Override Telework Protections in Union Contract, Arbitrator Tells HHS
- On February 18, 2026, arbitrator Michael T. Loconto ruled that HUD breached its agreement with AFGE Council 222 by terminating telework for roughly 7,000 employees, and ordered restoration of all agreements that existed as of January 2025.11Federal News Network. Arbitrator Orders HUD to Restore Telework for Thousands of Federal Employees
- On June 8, 2026, arbitrator Blanca E. Torres ruled that the USPTO violated federal labor law by unilaterally eliminating telework for about 156 non-Patents bargaining unit employees, and ordered the agency to rescind the restrictions.12IPWatchdog. Arbitrator Rules USPTO Violated Federal Labor Law by Eliminating Non-Patents Employee Telework Without Bargaining
These rulings bind only the specific agencies involved, and some agencies have reportedly moved to terminate union contracts altogether.
Disability Suits Against the DOJ
In June 2026, Joshua Mauldin, a disabled veteran and supervisory IT program manager, and Tarik Smajic, who has chronic spinal pain, sued the DOJ in the District of Columbia. They allege the agency engaged in a “systematic, agency-wide practice” of refusing to grant telework as a reasonable accommodation and that they faced retaliation, including demotions, salary reductions, and poor performance assessments, after requesting accommodations.7Government Executive. Lawsuit Claims DOJ Retaliating Against Employees With Disabilities Who Request Telework
A class action, Panian v. Blanche, was filed on June 3, 2026, in the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of immigration court employees with disabilities. Two attorney-advisors at the Executive Office for Immigration Review allege EOIR adopted a blanket “No Telework Accommodations” policy that categorically denies telework regardless of medical necessity. The case was assigned to Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles.13Democracy Forward. Civil Servants Sue Justice Department Over Unlawful Policy Denying Telework Accommodations to Workers With Disabilities14Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. Panian v. Blanche
Suits Over Who Pays for Home Internet and Supplies
A separate strand of litigation asks who pays for internet, phone service, and office supplies when employees work from home. The answer depends almost entirely on state law.
No federal statute requires employers to reimburse remote-work expenses unless the unreimbursed costs push effective pay below minimum wage. Several states, including California, Illinois, and Montana, require employers to cover necessary business expenses. California’s Labor Code Section 2802 has driven the most prominent cases.
In Williams v. Amazon.com Services LLC, a California-based engineer brought a class action alleging Amazon failed to reimburse home internet costs during the pandemic. A California judge rejected Amazon’s motion to dismiss, finding the reimbursement obligation applies even when employees work from home because of government mandates.15Bloomberg. Amazon Workers Close In on Trial to Recoup Work-at-Home Expenses A federal judge later denied class certification in March 2023, finding that the roughly 7,000 affected employees did not share a sufficiently common cause.16Bloomberg Law. Amazon Defeats Proposed Class Action Over Remote Work Expenses Amazon ultimately settled for $950,000, covering 6,893 current and former corporate employees in California who worked remotely for at least one pay period between March 2020 and July 2022. Individual payouts started at a minimum of $10, and attorneys’ fees took $285,000.17Employers Council. Giant Retailer Settles Remote California Employee Expenses Case
Wells Fargo faced a similar suit, Calderon v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., filed in May 2021 in the Central District of California, alleging the bank failed to reimburse pandemic remote-work expenses and misclassified employees to avoid overtime.18Bloomberg Law. Wells Fargo Should Pay Employees Remote Work Costs, Suit Says
What This Means for Your Right to Work From Home
The legal picture is uneven. EEOC guidance recognizes telework as a potential reasonable accommodation under the ADA, and employers must engage in an individualized, interactive process before denying such requests.19U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Work at Home/Telework as a Reasonable Accommodation The PWFA extends a similar framework to pregnancy. But no court has recognized a blanket right to remote work. The Fifth Circuit’s ruling in Hayes v. GStek reaffirmed that in-person attendance is a presumed essential function for most positions, and the Southern District of New York held that denying a remote-work request is not automatically an adverse employment action.
The practical answer depends on the specific job, the specific medical need, the state where the work is performed, and which court hears the case. For pregnant employees, the TQL verdict is a stark marker of what denying a well-supported accommodation request can cost. For employees with disabilities, outcomes diverge sharply between circuits. For federal workers, a union contract may be the strongest protection available. And for anyone paying out of pocket to work from home, state law, not federal, decides whether the employer has to pay you back.