The story so far:

KS joined an investment banking firm (the "Firm") on a prestigious analyst program, was put on her first live deal, pulled a few late nights, then went to HR to saying that she needed 8 - 9 hours of sleep consistently every night.

But before you start calling her weak and entitled, her request was necessitated by a documented medical condition.

The Firm put in place an accommodation that KS would not work between 12 am and 9 am each day. The senior partner told the project team that KS would be offline from 12 am to 9 am each day, but did not say why.

What happened next? The issue was resolved, and everyone lived happily ever after?²

--

There were a number of internal discussions within the Firm. The following views were expressed:

"...it's impossible for a first year to become value additive on something going this fast if they aren’t fully plugged in."

"...It's not helpful for anyone if she can’t get up to speed and own things as there is too much to do, and we need a full person to help with everything that needs to get done."

It was observed that KS "had difficulties keeping up with the changes that had been made to her work from the night prior."

"As this pace continues to pick up, it’s going to become more and more difficult to give [KS] responsibility for different workstreams (as opposed to just individual one-off tasks) and it is already becoming very inefficient. We discussed and think it may make sense to figure out staffing alternatives sooner rather than later."

What happened next? Did the Firm manage to find some solution that took into account KS' needs, while allowing her to contribute in a meaningful fashion?³

--

Around 2 weeks later, KS' employment was terminated by the Firm.

The Firm determined that:
- given the demands of the analyst position, the accommodation was unsustainable and could not be maintained long term; and
- KS was unable to perform the duties of an analyst with the accommodation.

KS was informed that she could not "perform the essential functions of this job", which required "available 24/7... given the unpredictable workload", and that the Firm's "ability to protect the 'blackout period' was not going to be sustainable with the program".

KS responded that, rather than be terminated, she would prefer "to rescind the accommodation and that [she] would work whatever hours were needed." But the Firm could not simply ignore KS' medical condition.

What happened next? Did KS accept the reality of the situation, and move on with no hard feelings?⁴

--

KS sued, naturally.⁵

In part 3, we'll talk about what happened in court.