A recent lawsuit claims that an employer failed to provide legally required accommodations for an employee’s medical conditions related to pregnancy and disability, raising questions about workplace rights for expectant and new mothers as well as those with disabilities. The complaint was filed by Morgan Murray in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on March 16, 2026, naming Kao USA, Inc. as the defendant.
According to the filing by Murray’s attorneys at Caffarelli & Associates Ltd., Murray began working for Kao USA as a Field Education Manager on April 24, 2022. Her job involved both field work—such as traveling to salons to teach classes—and remote duties like virtual instruction and scheduling. The complaint states that she consistently met performance expectations throughout her employment.
The legal dispute centers on events beginning in April 2023 when Murray learned she had a high-risk pregnancy. She submitted a doctor’s note requesting accommodations such as no bending or lifting over 20 pounds. The benefits team responded ambiguously: “I am assuming you will need to do such of the items below [listed accommodation]. I am not sure if we are able to accommodate this at this time.” According to the complaint, no alternative accommodations were offered or discussed.
The situation escalated when Murray experienced intense abdominal pain after field work in Chicago but was allegedly pressured by her supervisor, Anthony Soriano, to attend a team dinner despite her condition. During this event, she suffered a grand-mal seizure linked by her doctor to stress from her high-risk pregnancy. Following this diagnosis of epilepsy, Murray was placed on short-term disability leave concurrent with Family Medical Leave Act protections.
While on leave and after being medically cleared in July 2023, Murray sought reasonable accommodations multiple times but claims these requests were denied or ignored by Kao USA. Instead of allowing her return without restrictions, she was presented with two options: return under threat of unpaid leave if another seizure occurred before childbirth (which would also affect maternity leave eligibility), or convert her short-term leave into long-term disability status—again making her ineligible for maternity benefits.
Murray returned to work around September 5, 2023 and continued until giving birth in November 2023. After returning from maternity leave in February 2024 without restrictions, further incidents reportedly occurred. In June 2024 she stepped on a syringe at a company storage unit—an incident that led to illness due to medication interactions and another seizure resulting in a car crash. Although temporarily allowed remote work following this episode, Soriano soon revoked that accommodation; Murray then relied on friends and family for transportation but was denied full mileage reimbursement under company policy because others drove her car.
The complaint details additional alleged failures regarding lactation accommodations under federal and state law. In August 2024 during a video call with colleagues, Soriano reportedly refused Murray’s request for a break off camera so she could express milk; this resulted in visible distress during the meeting and subsequent development of mastitis. On other occasions Soriano suggested inappropriate locations for pumping milk such as lying on the floor of her car.
Murray also describes being told by Soriano not to disclose her epilepsy diagnosis out of concern about perceptions of special treatment—a directive she reported as stigmatizing both personally and professionally. When she requested a change of manager due to ongoing mistreatment, Kao USA denied it; instead another manager offered supervision during calls but did not follow through.
After suffering another seizure-related car crash in January 2025—an incident allegedly downplayed by management—Murray went back on short-term disability leave until July 2025. Attempts at finding reasonable accommodation included applying for internal remote roles; although interviewed several times for one such position (Partner Advisor Role), she was ultimately rejected based on shifting reasons provided by Kao USA management.
By July 27, 2025 Murray’s driver’s license was reinstated yet she was not permitted to return as Field Education Manager but encouraged instead to apply for long-term disability or seek further remote positions—a process she believed would not be conducted in good faith given prior experiences.
On September 5, 2025 Murray alleges constructive discharge due to what she describes as discriminatory practices preventing her return despite medical clearance.
The lawsuit asserts violations under multiple statutes: the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA), Providing Urgent Maternal Protections for Nursing Mothers Act (PUMP Act), Illinois Nursing Mothers in the Workplace Act (INMWA), Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA), among others. Specific allegations include failure to accommodate pregnancy- or disability-related needs; discrimination based on sex/pregnancy/disability; retaliation following complaints about treatment; denial of wage reimbursement; hostile work environment; imposition of unnecessary medical examination requirements; and constructive discharge.
For relief, Murray seeks back pay, front pay, lost benefits including liquidated damages; compensatory and punitive damages; equitable relief including injunctions; statutory damages plus interest; attorney’s fees and costs; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; along with any other relief deemed appropriate by the court.
Attorneys Alexis Martin and Amanda Burns from Caffarelli & Associates Ltd., located at South Michigan Avenue in Chicago represent Morgan Murray in case number 1:26-cv-02925.
Source: 126cv2925_Morgan_Murray_v_Kao_Usa_Complaint_Northern_District_of_Illinois.pdf