Whatever the verdict, the case is already forcing an on-the-record look at how a top-tier advisory firm defines “essential” in a profession. (AI image)

A Manhattan federal jury is about to take up an unusually blunt workplace question: Can an investment bank lawfully fire a junior banker who insists on a protected sleep window as a disability accommodation? The case pits former Centerview Partners analyst Kathryn Shiber against the elite M&A boutique after she was dismissed weeks into a “guardrails” arrangement that carved out nine hours of rest per night, according to the Financial Times.The legal fight turns on whether extreme, unpredictable availability is truly an “essential function” of the analyst job or simply a culturally enforced expectation. As federal judge Edgardo Ramos put it in an order moving the case toward trial: “There is a genuine dispute [about] 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,” per court records.Shiber says she was pushed out not because she couldn’t do the work, but because she needed consistent sleep to manage a diagnosed mood and anxiety disorder, the FT reported.Why it mattersWall Street’s junior-banker grind has been a simmering flashpoint since pandemic-era deal surges, when complaints about punishing schedules and chronic sleep deprivation spilled into public view and forced some banks to tinker with “protected” time off, the FT noted.What makes this case more than a culture-war curiosity is that it asks a jury to draw a line between:• High-intensity work that’s legitimately inherent to the job, and• Work patterns that persist because “that’s how it’s always been,” even if they collide with disability law.Legal scholars are watching because trials like this are rare. Disability-law professor Katherine Macfarlane told the FT it was “incredibly unusual” for an Americans with Disabilities Act case like Shiber’s to reach a jury, and she added it would be “slightly absurd [to be] in court arguing that people have to be available 24 hours a day, that’s your expectation . . . The number of people that would preclude is pretty big.”Zoom inShiber joined Centerview in 2020 as a 21-year-old junior analyst. Soon after she started, the firm agreed to a trade: a guaranteed nine-hour nightly sleep period in exchange for being reachable essentially all other times, seven days a week, the FT reported.Then the arrangement collapsed fast. Less than three weeks after Centerview implemented the terms, Shiber was terminated on a video call, and Centerview’s COO chastised her for pursuing investment banking given her rest requirements, according to the FT.The underlying workplace conflict traces to a live deal assignment (“Project Dragon”), where Shiber logged off after midnight without messaging senior teammates working on a client presentation; she was reprimanded and then contacted HR to disclose her medical need for sleep, per the FT.Centerview’s position is that the accommodation wasn’t viable beyond the very short term. In filings, the bank said there was “no reasonable accommodation available” if she required eight to nine hours of consistent sleep each night, and it argued junior bankers “are known to work long and often unpredictable hours, a consequence of the job of an investment banker”, the FT reported.Between the linesAt trial, the fight won’t just be about how many hours analysts work. It’s about which hours matter, and whether the midnight-to-morning stretch is operationally essential or merely tradition.John Jacobi, a visiting professor at Columbia Law School, framed the key issue to the FT this way: a central question is “whether it is actually essential that someone be available at three in the morning” – and whether the firm followed an “interactive process” to explore workable options.That “interactive process” point matters because many disability-accommodation disputes hinge less on a single policy than on whether the employer and employee genuinely tried to problem-solve before the relationship broke down.The case is also expected to spotlight the social machinery of junior banking: constant coordination, rapid iteration, and informal norms about when you’re allowed to step away. Centerview has tried to frame Shiber’s sleep window as a communication and teamwork problem as much as a time-off request, saying: “Junior bankers obviously don’t need permission to go to sleep, but are expected to work together and communicate properly with teammates,” according to reporting summarized in Business Insider coverage.What nextThe jury will effectively be asked to decide whether round-the-clock availability is part of the job’s core function or an employer preference that can be adjusted without breaking the role. Judge Ramos’ refusal to end the case early underscores how fact-intensive that question is – and why it’s headed to jurors rather than being resolved on paperwork alone.Expect the courtroom battle to revolve around:• Job reality vs. job description: Whether Centerview can substantiate that overnight availability is indispensable, especially if written expectations weren’t clearly codified and communicated (a point raised in prior reporting on the dispute).• Feasibility of coverage: Whether teammates could adjust workflows, staffing, or handoffs without undermining client service and deal execution.• Accommodation efforts: Whether Centerview’s short-lived guardrails were a genuine attempt at accommodation or a stopgap that set Shiber up to fail.• Damages: Shiber is seeking millions, including lost earnings and “emotional distress,” the FT reported, while Centerview disputes the premise that the role can be done with a fixed sleep block.Bigger picture: Whatever the verdict, the case is already forcing an on-the-record look at how a top-tier advisory firm defines “essential” in a profession that often treats exhaustion as a rite of passage.