She Says Chemical Exposure Damaged Her Lungs. Now a Maryland Woman Is Fighting for Her Health, Her Home and Her Day in Court

Black Press Media USA

When Ella Lee started writing her own court motions, she took on a challenge that would scare many people, even those with steady incomes, college degrees, and lawyers they can call for help.

She tried to learn workers’ compensation law while communicating with the insurance company. She questioned decisions on unemployment benefits and sought to understand her medical records. She dealt with doctors and hospitals, prepared court documents, and read settlement agreements drafted by lawyers, all while facing tight deadlines and people who often knew the rules better than she did.

Lee remembers when her life was considerably different.

She earned $25 an hour as a supervisor at Burrell Motor Coach in Baltimore, working weekdays from 6:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. She liked her clients, had weekends off, and made enough to sometimes help friends in need. Living alone in Southwest Baltimore, she felt she was in a good place.

“I felt good about where I was,” Lee said. “I felt the closest I’ve ever felt to Jehovah, and I was genuinely happy until they snatched it all away.”

Two and a half years later, Lee says she can barely afford her apartment. She has struggled to buy food and pay bills, and after working for DoorDash, she recently found another job.

The gap between those two parts of her life is filled with an employer, a workers’ compensation insurer, doctors, hospitals, government agencies, lawyers, judges, and hundreds of pages of records.

Lee now believes that some of these people and institutions worked together against her. Her story raises an important question: What happens when a regular worker’s dispute becomes too complex to handle alone, while the other side knows the system far better?

For Lee, it began at work.

In February 2024, while employed by Burrell, she complained that bleach and other cleaning chemicals being used inside the workplace were affecting her breathing.

“I had to take another unscheduled break because of the fumes,” Lee wrote to company owner Eric Burrell. “The new cleaner hired this week is using it constantly.”

She told Burrell that the enclosed building made it difficult to escape the fumes.

“Please hear me, Eric,” Lee wrote. “You know chemicals affect me, but the bleach is entirely too much. It makes it too difficult for me to breathe, and that’s life-threatening.”

The records show management was aware Lee was reporting health concerns. In another exchange, a supervisor told her, “We really care about your health,” and asked her to obtain information from her doctor identifying chemicals and cleaning products that affected her.

Eric Burrell did not return multiple messages seeking comments about Lee’s allegations and the company’s handling of her complaints.

Lee’s case isn’t isolated. National research suggests that for Black women, reporting a dangerous workplace, harassment, or discrimination can carry risks beyond the problem they originally raised.

The Center for Law and Social Policy describes a workplace landscape where racialized hostility, sexual harassment, and retaliation intersect with unequal power and economic insecurity. Research published by Harvard Business Review found that Black women are uniquely burdened by the “angry Black woman” stereotype, with expressions of frustration more readily interpreted as hostility or aggression, which can damage how colleagues view their competence and leadership potential.

Federal enforcement data has also pointed to the larger danger of speaking up. Retaliation has been the most frequently alleged basis of discrimination in private-sector charges for more than a decade, accounting for 56.8% of charges filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in fiscal 2023.

For Black women, CLASP argues, those pressures are intensified by their concentration in lower-paid and frontline jobs, where workers may have less economic room to absorb lost hours, discipline, or termination. The result can be a punishing cycle in which a woman who raises an alarm about working conditions finds herself forced to defend not only the complaint but also her credibility, temperament, and ultimately her right to remain on the job.

Lee says her condition got worse after an exposure on Feb. 23, 2024. She believes chlorine gas damaged her lungs and says she was later diagnosed with reactive airway disease. A pulmonary function report from March 2025 showed reduced lung volumes and results consistent with a restrictive ventilatory defect, but normal diffusing capacity. The report alone does not show what caused her condition.

Soon Lee found herself navigating workers’ compensation.

She first had an attorney but later fired him because she felt he was not truly representing her. Lee claims the lawyer worked with the defense, though this has not been independently confirmed.

“I lost trust in the attorneys,” Lee said.

She said she contacted more lawyers than she can count, sought help from legal aid organizations, and followed referrals from individuals she worshipped with. Some lawyers met with her. Others declined the case.

“I tried every last one of their leads,” she said. “But again, no one would take it.”

Lee says the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Commission eventually gave her about $8,000, saying she had an aggravation of a preexisting chemical sensitivity. She disagrees, saying the commission relied on an insurer exam instead of the medical evidence she thought supported her case.

In March 2025, Philip Stegemeyer, a senior claims adjuster at Chesapeake Employers Insurance, offered $20,000 to settle her workers’ compensation claim. He told Lee that, because she did not have a lawyer, the settlement would require a hearing before the Maryland Workers’ Compensation Commission.

Lee made her own demand for $71,172.97. The amount included hospital bills, prescriptions, ambulance costs, an independent medical exam, and $13,500 in lost wages.

She says the offer later went up to $32,000, but she still turned it down.

“I would have ended up owing if I took that agreement,” Lee said.

By that time, she was almost out of money.

Lee quit her job at Burrell on Feb. 17, 2025, saying the working conditions forced her to leave. She cited her breathing problems, the workers’ compensation issue, and short-term disability payments she said she never received.

The Maryland Department of Labor first decided that Lee had quit on her own and denied her unemployment benefits, saying there wasn't enough information at the time to show she had a valid reason to leave.

Lee appealed, stating she left because staying at Burrell was harmful to her health and that management was aware of her complaints.

“I lost everything,” Lee said. “I’m barely holding onto my apartment.”

Her experience with Maryland Occupational Safety and Health left her even more frustrated. Lee said MOSH investigated but never visited her workplace. She said they relied on information from Burrell and did not follow up after she submitted a rebuttal.

“That’s where I felt like I was not given justice,” Lee said.

Her legal troubles soon went beyond her job.

Lee became involved in separate litigation stemming from medical treatment she received in May 2024. She alleges that a doctor sexually assaulted her and later falsified information to conceal the incident. Lee said the physician was found not guilty in a criminal proceeding. Her allegations regarding the medical records and the prosecution have not been independently substantiated.

Lee also had a lawyer for the civil case, but she ended up firing her.

Among the records Lee provided is a proposed agreement to settle claims against medical defendants, who denied liability, offering $50,000.

Lee believed the release covered much more than just that case and could harm other claims she was pursuing. The proposed agreement included broad release terms and rules governing disclosure, communication with news organizations, and posting on social media.

The copy Lee provided does not contain her signature on the final signature and notarization page.

“The proposed settlement was a trap,” Lee said.

A court later ordered the settlement enforced. Lee says she never agreed to the terms and is challenging the decision. To know exactly what happened, one would need the hearing transcript, court orders, and filings from the other attorneys.

While handling her own case, Lee also turned to a tool that people in her situation could not have used just a few years ago: artificial intelligence.

She said she started using AI to help her understand legal terms, read documents, and prepare court filings.

“I honestly don’t think I would have gotten this far had I not done it on my own with the help of AI,” Lee said.

Lee contends that later versions of the proposed settlement sought to prevent her from using it, from having it represent her in court, from questioning witnesses, or from promising that its reading of a law or settlement is right. But for Lee, it gave her a way to ask questions about documents written by lawyers when she no longer had one she trusted.

Now she talks about independent medical exams, releases, exhibits, and appeals—terms far removed from the life of the woman who once happily supervised employees and went home at 3:30 each day.

Lee has also come to believe that lawyers, doctors, insurers, government officials, and others colluded to defeat her cases. She has made additional allegations regarding her electronic devices, employment opportunities, and other aspects of her life. 

Her overall allegations document the path that brought her here.

Lee raised concerns about chemicals at work, and management was aware of her complaints. She went through the workers’ compensation process, received medical care, lost income, fought for unemployment benefits, and became involved in a separate medical lawsuit. Over time, her lawyers left, and Lee had to handle more and more of the legal process on her own.

Her letters and emails show the personal toll better than any court document could.

In March 2025, Lee wrote to the Chesapeake adjuster while waiting for a decision on the money she desperately needed.

“My life and survival are in your decision today to approve the payment for my time loss from last year,” Lee wrote.

Then, the woman who had learned to talk about claims, medical exams, and settlements stopped using the system’s language entirely.

“Please save my apartment and relieve the enormous stress I am currently under.”

Lee says she is still in her apartment, but just barely. She has found a new job and hopes it will bring some stability. Her legal battles are not over.

What she misses most is the life she had before she realized how much law someone might have to learn just to keep going.

“I felt good about where I was,” Lee said. “I was genuinely happy until they snatched it all away.”