New York, N.Y. (October 20, 2025) - New York Partner Bradley J. Bartolomeo and Associate Daniel Axelrod secured a dismissal on summary judgment for the firm’s client, The Bridge, Inc., in the matter of Baker v. The Bridge, Inc., No. 23-CV-04416 (S.D.N.Y.).
On September 30, 2025, U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Garnett granted summary judgment in favor of The Bridge and two individual defendants, dismissing all eleven claims brought by a former employee under federal, state, and city anti-discrimination laws. The plaintiff — a registered nurse on The Bridge’s Forensic Assertive Community Treatment (“FACT”) team — claimed she was denied a fully remote work arrangement during her pregnancy and then was retaliated against for filing a grievance.
The Court’s Ruling: A Resounding Defense Win
In a comprehensive 38-page opinion, the Court rejected each theory of liability advanced by the plaintiff, finding:
- No Discrimination, No Retaliation: The plaintiff failed to present any evidence of discriminatory or retaliatory motive. The Court found that her placement on unpaid leave was driven solely by her inability to perform the essential duties of her role — not by her pregnancy, disability or any alleged protected activity.
- Essential Functions Matter: The Court emphasized that in-person, community-based services were core to the RN role on the FACT team. The plaintiff’s request for full-time remote work would have eliminated those functions, rendering the accommodation unreasonable under the disability discrimination laws.
- Interactive Process Done Right: The Bridge’s documented efforts to engage in a good-faith interactive process — including multiple offers of alternative accommodations — were more than satisfactory to satisfy its obligations under the disability discrimination laws. The plaintiff declined every option, including reassignment and modified schedules. The Bridge was not required to provide plaintiff’s requested accommodation, and they acted properly by offering a reasonable alternative accommodation.
- No Comparator Evidence, No Pretext: The plaintiff failed to identify any similarly situated employees who received more favorable treatment, and the Court held that she had not adduced any evidence that the Bridge’s decisions were a pretext for discrimination or retaliation.
This decision is a powerful affirmation of employer discretion in defining essential job functions and managing accommodation requests. It reinforces that:
- Employers are not required to eliminate core responsibilities or reassign them to others.
- A well-documented interactive process can be a decisive defense.
- Temporal proximity alone is not enough to establish discrimination or retaliation.
- Courts will scrutinize accommodation requests that conflict with regulatory mandates or operational realities.
Key Takeaways – How to Tighten Your Accommodation Practices
For employers navigating accommodation requests — especially in client-facing roles involving direct service delivery — this ruling provides a roadmap: employers must define essential functions, document the interactive process when accommodation is sought, and when possible offer reasonable alternative accommodations if the employee’s request cannot be granted. When done right, courts will uphold those decisions.