Gretchen L. Whaling

Gretchen helps clients navigate complex business and commercial disputes in a wide variety of industries. She has experience practicing in administrative tribunals and in state and federal courts at both the trial and appellate levels. Her experience includes contract disputes, product liability and breach of warranty cases, white-collar investigations, and public utility disputes, among others.

Prior to joining Calfee, Gretchen served as a Law Clerk for the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Gretchen also served as a Law Clerk for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

Before her time as a clerk, Gretchen was an Associate in the Columbus office of a national law firm.

Gretchen earned her J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law in 2017, where she served as an executive editor of the Virginia Law Review and was a Dillard Fellow. Before law school, Gretchen attended Christopher Newport University, where she earned a B.A. degree, summa cum laude, in Political Science and Philosophy and was valedictorian of her class.

Gretchen joined Calfee as an Associate in 2020.

Honors & Recognitions

• Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch, Commercial Litigation (2025)
• Ohio Super Lawyers, Ohio Rising Stars, Business Litigation (2024-2025)

Education

J.D., University of Virginia School of Law, 2017

B.A., Political Science and Philosophy, summa cum laude, Christopher Newport University, 2014

Experience

Representative Business, Corporate, and Commercial Litigation Matters

• Calfee served as lead litigation counsel for one of the nation’s premier retirement systems. The client issued an RFP for the administration of its Medicare and non-Medicare healthcare benefits plans beginning January 1, 2024. After a thorough evaluation of the applicants, the client selected a healthcare services provider as a single provider for both the Medicare and non-Medicare benefits. An unrelated private health insurer challenged the selection process and filed a TRO to prevent the client from executing the contract with the selected provider and from proceeding with the selected provider as a single provider of medical benefits for the over 110,000 retirees. The unrelated private health insurer’s main arguments were that the client did not follow the state’s public procurement statutes and that the client violated the RFP in numerous ways, including, but not limited to, relying on unannounced criteria, communicating directly with applicants outside the RFP process, ignoring certain federal standards pertaining to the administration of Medicare plans, and by rejecting the recommendation of a third-party hired to assist the client with the RFP process. Because of the TRO, and because the client had limited time to complete contract negotiations before the January 1, 2024 go-live date, the case was set on an expedited track. The Court granted our client’s motion for summary judgment. Shortly thereafter, the unrelated private health insurer filed an appeal; however, before their appellate brief was due, the party dismissed the appeal. It was a complete victory for Calfee’s client.
• Calfee is representing a mutual health insurance company in several litigation matters, specifically: (1) a class action lawsuit challenging the client's practices in connection with "value-based contracting" with medical providers; (2) a class action lawsuit challenging the client's practices also in connection with "value-based contracting" by medical providers but with a larger putative class; (3) an action alleging the breach of our client's agreements with two national insurance providers.
• Calfee served as lead litigation counsel to our pharmaceutical company client as part of the National Opioid Litigation brought by virtually every state and municipality in the country. It is the largest or one of the largest tort cases in U.S. history. The Attorney General of Ohio sued opioid manufacturers, including Calfee’s client and its related entities for damages arising out of the marketing, sales, and distribution of opioid-related products. This matter is part of an industry-wide litigation against opioid manufacturers, distributors, and medical professionals brought by states and municipalities across the country, claiming that the opioid industry misled the public about the dangers of opioid addiction.
• Calfee is serving as lead counsel to a global chemical company assisting the client in all aspects of a cyberattack matter. Among other things, Calfee assisted the company in investigating the source of the cyberattack and in obtaining insurance coverage relating to the attack. Calfee has also been retained to defend the company with regard to losses arising from the cyberattack and the network outage. Calfee has also been retained by the insurer to pursue subrogation claims against the company whose negligent conduct caused the cyberattack.
• Calfee served as lead litigation counsel to a publicly traded, Fortune 500, multi-billion-dollar chemical company. Calfee’s client acquired a business unit from a competitor and assumed responsibility for its litigation with a private chemical company. The litigation involved a dispute over a plant closure and the resulting termination of a supply agreement for hydrochloric acid. The case presents unique questions of law relating to a company’s legal basis for avoiding contractual obligations due to a plant closure. The case also involves novel questions relating to the calculation of damages under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).
• Calfee is serving as lead counsel to a national medication prescription services provider in a proposed class action against them for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The plaintiff alleges wrongful telephone solicitation of the plaintiff and persons similarly situated in violation of the TCPA and contravention of the National Do Not Call registry. The client vehemently denies the allegations as it has an extensive TCPA compliance program, and the client asserts that the specific plaintiff provided express consent to the phone solicitation, and therefore both the plaintiff’s claims and the attempted class action certification are meritless.

Representative Energy and Utilities Matters

• Calfee represented a large Midwestern U.S. municipality in a base electric distribution rate case filed by a large energy holding company at the Public Utility Commission of Ohio.
• Calfee represented a large university client before the Ohio Power Siting Board to obtain approval for a facility to provide power to campus buildings. Since the approval by the PUCO, Calfee has successfully opposed applications for rehearing filed by an environmental organization and continued to work with Commission Staff on construction progress and satisfaction of Commission conditions. Calfee attorneys also have advised the client concerning the Long-Term Lease and Concession Agreement with a joint venture organization and related construction issues involving this energy facility.

Professional & Community

• AmeriCorps, Former Volunteer