A former assistant logistics manager has accused his previous employer of terminating him due to his medical condition and for requesting accommodations under the Family and Medical Leave Act. The complaint was filed by Billy Moe in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on April 13, 2026, naming Company Wrench, Ltd. and Ashley Warren as defendants.
According to the filing, Moe began working at Company Wrench as a warehouse associate on or about April 5, 2021. He was promoted to assistant logistics manager in November 2021. Moe lives with Type 2 Diabetes, which he describes as a physical impairment that substantially limits major life activities such as working and affects several bodily systems. The complaint states that Moe disclosed his condition to Company Wrench and its representatives during his employment.
The document outlines that Moe’s diabetes caused unpredictable symptoms requiring him to take time off work and request ongoing accommodations. In July 2024, Moe was demoted from assistant logistics manager to product support associate due to difficulties performing job duties related to his medical condition. Shortly after this demotion, Moe requested continuous leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) so he could better manage his diabetes symptoms.
Company Wrench approved Moe’s FMLA leave beginning July 29, 2024. During this period, another individual replaced him in his former position. By October 2024, Moe’s FMLA leave had been exhausted but he had not recovered enough to return to work. At the end of his leave period, Ashley Warren—identified as a human resources generalist—contacted Moe regarding his return.
Moe then requested an extension of his medical leave until he could fully control his symptoms—a request referred to in the complaint as “Moe’s Accommodation Request.” The filing asserts that this request would not have caused undue hardship for Company Wrench and was initially granted by the company.
In mid-January 2025, Moe informed another human resources representative that he planned to return on February 2, 2025. However, at a meeting on January 28, Warren revoked the previously granted accommodation for continued medical leave. According to the complaint, Warren explained that Company Wrench would not continue accommodating Moe for the remaining five days until his planned return date.
The lawsuit alleges that before revoking this accommodation, neither Warren nor Company Wrench evaluated whether it would cause undue hardship or considered alternative accommodations or costs associated with providing them. Furthermore, no documentation was created reflecting any effort to determine these factors or seek outside funding if financial hardship existed.
Following this revocation of accommodation on January 28, 2025, Company Wrench terminated Moe’s employment on grounds that there was no available position for him because it had been filled during his absence. The complaint disputes this explanation as pretextual and asserts there were open positions—including accounts payable specialist or warehouse associate—for which Moe was qualified and could have performed with reasonable accommodation.
Moe claims that similarly situated employees were not terminated under comparable circumstances when open positions existed. He alleges that termination was motivated by retaliation for requesting disability accommodations and FMLA leave rather than legitimate business reasons.
The legal arguments presented include multiple counts: disability discrimination under both federal law (the Americans with Disabilities Act) and Ohio law; failure to accommodate; retaliation in violation of FMLA; and unlawful aiding or abetting discrimination by Ashley Warren individually under Ohio Revised Code §4112.02(J). The complaint states: “Defendants’ termination of Moe’s employment was retaliation for requesting an accommodation for his disability” and “Defendants terminated Moe’s employment because of Moe’s Medical Condition.”
As relief from the court, Moe seeks an order directing corrective action by Defendants; compensatory damages exceeding $25,000 for lost income and benefits; non-monetary damages such as emotional distress; punitive damages over $25,000; attorneys’ fees; costs; prejudgment interest; reputational harm compensation; and any further relief deemed appropriate by the court.
The case is identified as Case No. 2:26-cv-00440-SDM-KAJ in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Eastern Division at Columbus. Billy Moe is represented by attorney Trisha M. Breedlove of Spitz, The Employee’s Law Firm.
Source: 226cv00440_Moe_v_Company_Wrench_LTD_Complaint_Southern_District_Ohio.pdf
