Nancy V. Wright

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 Yusha Hiraman (Of Counsel-New York, NY) garnered a low five-figure nuisance value settlement for their employer client in a matter slated for a public hearing before the New York State Division of Human Rights following a probable cause finding. This matter involved claims of age, disability, and sex/gender discrimination, as well as sexual harassment, brought by a former employee who abandoned her job after filing an internal complaint, and later alleged she was constructively discharged for complaining. The pre-hearing settlement conference was scheduled before an Administrative Law Judge, during which Yusha skillfully handled the settlement negotiations, highlighting the claims’ deficiencies and resolving the matter with the State Division attorney within an hour. Notably, Yusha emphasized the complainant’s clear failure to mitigate damages for more than two years – an argument that helped drive the swift resolution.

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.

Nancy Wright (Partner-New York, NY) and Amy Largacha Cedeno (Associate-New York, NY) defended a prominent private research corporation and three individually named employees in a lawsuit filed by a former employee who alleged discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under state and city discrimination laws. In 2024, Nancy and Amy successfully secured dismissal of the federal claims filed in the Southern District Court of New York, which opted not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state and city claims. As a result, the plaintiff re-filed a complaint alleging the state and city claims in state court, Queens County. Nancy and Amy filed a motion for pre-answer dismissal on the grounds that all the claims were legally insufficient. They argued that the plaintiff failed to plead any actions by the defendants based on discriminatory animus regarding the plaintiff’s protected status. Further, they argued that the plaintiff had failed to establish the necessary elements for a retaliation claim as she had failed to plead any participation in a protected activity – a threshold requirement. The court agreed and dismissed the claims against all defendants in their entirety.

Nancy V. Wright (Partner-New York, NY), Saige Subick (Of Counsel-New York, NY), and Michael Colgan (Associate-New York, NY) secured a complete victory for our client, a public college under the State University of New York, in New York City. In a hard-fought, multi-witness disciplinary proceeding arbitrated under N.Y. Education Law § 2587 and the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), against the employee’s union. Our client brought this action against an IT analyst, who had been with the client since 2007, who repeatedly refused to perform assigned tasks, engaged in loud and argumentative behavior in the workplace, consistently abused the time and attendance policy, and, most seriously, made a direct threat of gun violence against a supervisor following the denial of a work-from-home request. The team presented extensive evidence and multiple witness testimony demonstrating a pattern of performance deficiencies and support of the gross misconduct and insubordination charges. The team organized five years of performance documentation into an exhibit outlining that the employee had been counseled and submitted a concise, fact-driven 40-page post-hearing summation brief that, among other arguments, showed the threat of violence as per se terminable misconduct, rendering all other charges surplusage. After a four-day evidentiary hearing spread across five months, the Hearing Officer issued a Report & Recommendation that agreed with the Wilson Elser team on virtually all points. The arbitrator found “gross misconduct” and “just cause” for termination under § 2587 and Article 28.28 of the CBA. The Union’s demand for reinstatement with back pay was denied in its entirety. 

Nancy Wright (Partner-New York, NY) and associates Stefanie Shmil and Amy Largacha Cedeno prevailed in Queens County Supreme Court on behalf of a practitioner and his medical practice in a case in which a former patient alleged she was sexually abused from 1994–2006, without proffering any specific dates. Plaintiff asserted claims under the Adult Survivors Act sounding in assault, battery, negligence, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent hiring, retention, and supervision. The court, in the very first line of its Preliminary Considerations, noted and echoed the teams’ dismissal argument that the plaintiff’s submission was deficient in a number of respects, highlighting the incorrect caption, listing of the wrong plaintiff, and referencing the wrong defendants and arguments culled from another case – and noted that the plaintiff’s counsel’s excuse for these errors was “unacceptable and unavailing” and cited the pitfalls of copying and pasting from documents in other cases. The court agreed with the team’s dismissal arguments that the plaintiff’s various negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligent hiring and supervision claims were legally deficient and, in some instances, duplicative and dismissed those claims. The court also granted our client’s request for a more definitive statement as to the remaining claims, directing the plaintiff to amend her complaint to set forth specific dates, or at least the month and years when she alleges the sexual abuse purportedly occurred. 

Nancy Wright (Partner-New York, NY) successfully represented an Addiction Care Center before the New York State Division of Human Rights in a case in which the claimant, a former case manager, alleged that our client denied him a reasonable accommodation and leave for his disability after he was diagnosed with liver and prostate cancer, then later terminated his employment. Nancy argued that the contemporaneous documentary record showed that the claimant’s employment was terminated because he repeatedly violated the company’s policies despite several warnings, including theft of time, and that in each instance where the claimant sought time off, his request was granted. Further, the claimant was granted a modified work schedule relative to his treatment and disability-related needs, which he consistently violated by, among other actions, refusing to clock out when leaving for his appointments, even after repeated warnings. The State Division agreed with Nancy’s arguments that the applicable disability law has no requirement that exceptions should be made for blatant policy violations because of the claimant’s disabilities; reducing the stated penalties for undisputed workplace misconduct or poor work performance is not a reasonable accommodation; and, it is well settled law that corrective action in the form of verbal or written counseling of an employee for policy violations is not disability harassment.

New York, N.Y., partners Nancy Wright and Marielle Moore and Samuel Weinstein (Associate-New York) successfully defended the firm’s hotel client and an individually named female manager in a case alleging a hostile work environment, quid pro quo sexual harassment and retaliatory termination of employment. The defense team highlighted the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for plaintiff’s termination (during his brief three-month employment, plaintiff received more than seven counseling sessions in response to at least ten complaints about his performance). Toward the end of his employment tenure, plaintiff sustained a physical injury on the job with a resulting permanent partial disability. Once cleared to return to work, the performance issues and complaints continued. Accordingly, another manager demanded plaintiff’s employment be immediately terminated, noting he was killing the morale of the department. The defense also established that it was only during plaintiff’s termination meeting that he first made allegations of sexual harassment. Plaintiff was repeatedly impeached during his cross-examination by the defense team, which detailed various points in plaintiff’s underlying workers’ compensation and deposition testimony where he had claimed he was terminated due to his injuries. Plaintiff’s impeachment and numerous inconsistencies were highlighted during the defense team’s closing argument, which, coupled with plaintiff’s inability to impeach the defense’s witnesses, resulted in the jury unanimously returning a defense verdict after a mere 30-minute deliberation. The defense verdict was especially gratifying as the accused female manager had lived under the cloud of false sexual harassment claims for nearly 10 years. The claims were dismissed under the New York State Human Rights Law and the plaintiff-friendly New York City Human Rights Law.