Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—S.D.N.Y.: Analyst, fired because she could not be available 24/7, advances claims, (Oct 7, 2025)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

The investment banking analyst told HR that she had a medical condition that required 8-9 hours of sleep per night on a consistent basis.

Finding fact issues as to whether the ability to be available at all hours of the day and to work long and unpredictable hours was an essential job function of an analyst for an investment banking advisory firm, and as to whether a newly-hired analyst who suffered from post-concussive syndrome and unspecified anxiety and mood disorders and required eight to nine hours of sleep consistently could have performed the job with a reasonable accommodation, a federal court in New York denied summary judgment on her federal- and state-law disability discrimination claims. Her NYCHRL retaliation claim and NJLAD failure to engage in an interactive process claims also survived summary judgment (Shiber v. Centerview Partners LLC, No. 21-cv-3649 (ER) (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 2025)).

Shortly after she graduated from college, the analyst accepted an offer for a position in the company’s three-year program training college graduates in investment banking. According to the company, analyst hours are unpredictable, and analysts are expected to be available at all hours, sometimes working 24 hours a day. When she began working for the company, she worked remotely due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Medical conditions. In high school, the analyst, who had suffered multiple concussions, was diagnosed with post-concussive syndrome. While still in college, she was diagnosed with unspecified mood disorder and unspecified anxiety disorder.

First assignment. After three weeks of training, the analyst was assigned to work on a deal involving a potential merger for a large client. During her first week, she worked until 2:00 a.m. for two or three days in a row and until 1:00 a.m. on another night. On Friday of that week, she logged off at 1:00 a.m. without telling anyone else on her team as she believed she had completed her assignments.

The following morning, an associate emailed her stating that they needed to talk about expectations on communication and for being on a live project. After agreeing to talk to the associate, the analyst emailed and then met with the HR director during which she disclosed that she had a medical condition for which she needed an accommodation because she consistently required eight to nine hours of sleep per night.

Guardrails accommodation. The HR director contacted the company’s COO, who talked to the senior partner on the project to which the employee had been assigned. Later that day, the HR director proposed a “guardrails accommodation” that would allow the analyst to not work between midnight and 9 a.m. each day. At the analyst’s request, the HR director told her team only that she would be offline during those hours but did not tell them why. The analyst also sent a note to HR from her nurse practitioner stating that she required “consistent sleep 8—9 hours” otherwise “she is a[t] a significant risk for exacerbation of her illness.”

Termination. After several emails between members of her team, the company added another analyst to the project to address staffing concerns. Several days later, the COO discovered an article profiling the analyst in a sailing team website that mentioned the concussions she had suffered in high school. The COO admitted that she decided to terminate the analyst that day.

Several days later, the COO told the analyst that she could not “perform the essential functions of this job, which require[d] [] [her] to [] be available 24/7 given the unpredictable workload” and that the decision to terminate her was “irrevocable.” Although the analyst asked that the company instead rescind the accommodation, the COO replied that the company could not ignore the medical note stating that there was a significant risk her illness could be exacerbated if she did not get eight to nine hours of consistent sleep.

Disability discrimination. The analyst sued for disability discrimination in violation of the ADA, the NYSHRL, the NYCHLR, and the NJLAD, and the company, moving for summary judgment, argued that she was unable to perform the essential function of being available at all hours of the day working long, unpredictable hours. In support, it pointed to its judgment of what is essential, the amount of time spent by a junior analyst performing the function, the consequences of waiving an analyst’s ability to work unpredictable hours, and the actual work experience of other junior analysts at the company and in the investment banking industry generally.

For her part, the analyst argued that not only did the company fail to identify an essential function she was unable to fulfill; it also did not cite to any internal job description or firm policy corroborating that the ability to be available at all hours of the day and work long, unpredictable hours was an essential function of her job.

Agreeing that the company did not provide sufficient evidence in support of its position, the court noted that, in addition to not providing a job description or firm policy, it did not provide any analysis of the hours that its analysts actually work, any substantive testimony about the hours other entry-level employees work at comparable firms, or any comprehensive data on the hours actually worked by the analyst’s team members.

While it relied on 33 Vault.com reviews and the depositions of four employees regarding the hours of junior investment bankers in the company and the investment banking industry in general, that did not meet an objective standard, said the court. Nor was there any evidence the analyst reviewed the Vault.com entries prior to starting at the company. Finding a genuine dispute of fact whether the ability to be available at all hours of the day and to work long, unpredictable hours is an essential function of the analyst role, the court denied summary judgment on this claim.

Failure to accommodate. As to the analyst’s failure-to-accommodate claim under the ADA, NYSHRL, NYCHRL, and the NJLAD, the company argued that because she could not perform an essential function of her position—the ability to work indeterminate hours on a daily basis—there was no reasonable accommodation it could have provided to ensure she received eight to nine hours of sleep per night. Denying summary judgment against this claim as well, the court noted that it had already found a fact dispute whether the ability to be available at all hours of the day and to work long, unpredictable hours was an essential function of the analyst role.

There was also a fact dispute, said the court, as to whether there was an alternate reasonable accommodation the company could have provided. The analyst’s assertion she could have performed her job so long as she could get eight-nine hours of sleep “frequently” was supported by her healthcare provider, who testified as follows: “[I]t may not necessarily be hours of sleep, but has to be consistent. You know, 12 midnight to 5 in morning—you know, consistently—even on weekends, within an hour or so.” Further, the court observed, the analyst was told the termination decision was “irrevocable,” and the company allowed no further conversation despite her efforts to continue to engage.

Inactive process. Addressing next the analyst’s NJLAD failure to engage in an interactive process claim, the court again noted there was a fact dispute as to whether the ability to be available at all hours of the day and to work long, unpredictable hours was an essential function of the analyst role. Further, the company did not offer or discuss alternatives with her when it determined that the accommodation was too burdensome and instead fired her without any additional negotiation. Thus, this claim also survived summary judgment.

Retaliation. Finally, as to the analyst’s NYCHRL retaliation claim, the company argued that it terminated her because she was not qualified to perform the analyst role without accommodation, and it could not sustain the accommodation she had requested. It also argued that it had a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for firing her—there was no reasonable accommodation that would enable her to perform the essential functions of her job.

For her part, the analyst contended that the COO told her at the time she was fired that she took “a coveted spot” in the program “where [she] agreed to fulfill the requirements for three years [that] given the accommodation she [could not] fulfill.” She also argued that the hostility the COO exhibited while firing her demonstrated retaliatory animus and noted that there was temporal proximity between her request for accommodation and her termination.

Allowing this claim to also proceed to trial, the court found the company not only failed to prove as a matter of law that the analyst could not perform her job without the accommodation; there was also a fact dispute whether it retaliated against her by firing her for requesting an accommodation.

The case is No. 21-cv-3649 (ER).

Judge: Ramos, E.

Attorneys: Davida S. Perry (Schwartz Perry & Heller) for Kathryn Shiber. Hope Delaney Skibitsky (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan) for Centerview Partners LLC.

Companies: Centerview Partners LLC

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge StateLawClaims Retaliation NewYorkNews NewJerseyNews