Jenna A. Agatep Slater

Nancy Wright (Partner-New York, NY), Tatjana Calimpong-Burke (Associate-New York, NY), and Jenna Agatep Slater (Associate-New York, NY) secured a complete defense victory for Wilson Elser’s client, a University, when the Honorable Jed. S. Rakoff of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted the University’s motion for summary judgment in its entirety and dismissed all claims. With his pre-trial procedures often described as the "rocket docket," Judge Rakoff directed both parties to be "trial ready" by May 18, 2026, after the filing of the University's answer on January 16, 2026. Operating under this less-than-ideal discovery schedule, the New York team completed 12 depositions and extensive summary judgment motion and cross motion practice by May 13, 2026.
 
The plaintiff, a former undergraduate with a diagnosed disability, alleged the University discriminated and retaliated against her based on her use of her dog, Zeus, which she claimed was a service animal. She asserted violations of the Fair Housing Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law, challenging our client’s handling of her accommodation requests related to Zeus, air-conditioning requests, scholarship eligibility, and eventual expulsion.
 
The New York team demonstrated that the plaintiff, not the University, caused the breakdown in the required cooperative dialogue, having refused to sign the University's universally applied Assistance Animal Agreement and failing to provide required documentation or properly request the accommodations she later claimed were denied. The defense also established significant weaknesses in plaintiff's contention that Zeus qualified as a service animal, highlighting evidence that showed the plaintiff inconsistently characterized Zeus as both a service animal and an emotional support animal; that her therapist reclassified the dog as a service animal only after initially identifying him as an emotional support animal and acknowledged that she was not an expert in animal classifications; and that the plaintiff herself conducted the dog's training, despite surveillance videos showing Zeus habitually disregarding her commands and barking at students. Wilson Elser further challenged the claimed effectiveness of the animal, demonstrating that the therapist's opinions were based solely on the plaintiff's self-reporting, as she had never met Zeus and lacked expertise regarding service or support animals. Nancy, Tatjana, and Jenna also established that the plaintiff's air-conditioning requests were unrelated to her disability. On the retaliation claims, they showed legitimate, non-retaliatory grounds for each challenged action, including a scholarship denial based on the plaintiff's transfer-student status and an expulsion triggered by the plaintiff’s blatant misconduct captured on a surveillance recording, and independently upheld by the University President on appeal.
 
The Court denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and granted Wilson Elser’s motion in full, directing entry of final judgment in favor of the University and closing the case on June 15, 2026.

Nancy Wright (Partner-New York, NY) and Jenna Agatep (Associate-New York, NY) obtained four “no probable cause” findings and case dismissals from the New York State Division of Human Rights (DHR) for the firm’s education clients: two colleges, a charter school, and a private school.

• In the first case, a security guard sued the firm’s college client for retaliation after he was removed from campus to another location, for allegedly reporting sexual harassment involving two other security guards. Nancy and Jenna argued that (1) the college was not the complainant’s employer as he was hired and placed by a security firm at the college; (2) the college, upon receiving complainant’s actual employer’s investigative notes regarding the reported incident, uncovered that complainant and one of the security guards had participated in the very sexual harassment incident complainant raised, and requested that complainant’s employer remove the guards from its premises due to the investigation findings. The employer complied and, it appeared, later terminated complainant’s employment. In its Determination and Order After Investigation, the DHR agreed with the college’s arguments and dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause to support discrimination. 
   
• In the second case, an applicant for a teaching position sued the firm’s charter school client for age discrimination and retaliation after she was not selected for the position. Nancy and Jenna argued that (1) complainant did not proffer any evidence connecting her age or opposition to discrimination to the school’s hiring decision; (2) complainant was not qualified for the position, having performed poorly during her in-person interview and mock presentation, giving the school a legitimate business reason for not selecting her; and (3) the candidate actually selected for the role was in his 50s – the same protected age group as the complainant thereby negating any inference of age discrimination. The DHR once again agreed and dismissed the complaint for lack of probable cause. 
   
• In the third case, a prospective male applicant to a film festival hosted by an all-women’s college sued the program for gender discrimination. The complainant alleged that the program discriminates against male screenwriters and filmmakers by not allowing them to apply based on the language on their website. Nancy and Jenna argued that (1) the festival does not prohibit anyone from applying based on their gender and, more importantly, (2) the complainant had not even applied to the program and therefore could not have been denied entry. After investigation, the DHR agreed and dismissed the complaint. 
   
• In the final case, an attorney candidate for a part-time swim instructor position with minor students sued the firm’s private school client for discrimination based on his arrest/conviction record. Complainant was offered conditional employment but after a background check returned certain convictions including sexual offenses, the client rescinded its offer pending further investigation. Once the school concluded its investigation and found the results were erroneous, it reinstated the complainant’s offer. However, the complainant was irate and refused to accept the offer, voiced his indignation, demanded apologies from the head of the school, and stated his intent to file suit. Nancy and Jenna argued, and the DHR agreed, that the school had a legitimate non-discriminatory business reason for rescinding complainant’s job offer; the rescindment was ultimately voided in a matter of days and the offer was then reinstated and refused. As a result, the DHR dismissed the case finding no probable cause to support discrimination.