The story so far:

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

The Firm put in place an accommodation that KS would not work between 12 am and 9 am each day. But about 2 weeks later, her employment was terminated.

She sued.

For over $5 million in damages.²

How did the Firm respond?

--

KS's claim was for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate and engage in an interactive dialogue, and retaliation.³

The Firm applied for summary judgment against KS.⁴ In simple terms, the Firm took the position that since there was no genuine dispute as to any material fact, almost all of KS's claims should be dismissed in order to avoid a protracted, expensive, and harassing trial.

--

The Firm argued that "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."

However, the court held that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that a reasonable jury could not find that the ability to be available at all hours of the day and to work long, unpredictable hours is not an essential function of the analyst role. In particular, the Firm:
1️⃣ did not provide a job description or firm policy that supported its position;
2️⃣ did not provide any analysis of the hours that its analysts actually work, nor any substantive testimony about the hours that other entry-level employees work at comparable firms; and
3️⃣ relied on reviews on an online review platform and the testimony of 4 employees, which did not meet an objective standard.

There were therefore genuine disputes of fact on 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.⁵

The Court allowed KS to maintain several claims relating to disability discrimination, a failure to provide reasonable accommodation, and retaliation.

But to be clear, this does NOT mean that KS has succeeded in her claim against the Firm. It only means that the Firm tried, but was unable, to secure an early victory against KS on these claims. Both KS and the Firm live to fight another day.

But this also means that the lawsuit will continue, and I suspect with no end in sight.

--

In part 4, I'll share some reflections and takeaways for both employers and employees.