Legal Analysis
Employment Tip of the Month – October 2026
October 2026
Tatjana Calimpong-Burke represents clients in labor and employment law matters at the agency, state, and federal levels involving discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and contract disputes. She provides strategic counsel to employers on compliance with federal and state laws, including but not limited to hiring practices, termination procedures, discrimination prevention, wage-and-hour regulations, disability accommodations, risk management strategies, and internal investigations. In addition, Tatjana advises clients on best practices for employment policies, contracts, and diversity and inclusion issues. She is well-versed in drafting workplace policies, handbooks, and employment agreements for employers.
Before joining Wilson Elser, Tatjana worked at an insurance defense firm, where her practice focused on labor and employment disputes and the defense of claims involving general liability and professional liability. She was a core member of an attorney team that advised employers on critical compliance requirements, assessed potential risks related to clients’ business operations, and worked in collaboration with clients’ in-house counsel and human resources partners to minimize litigation exposure.
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 V. Wright, Tatjana Calimpong-Burke and Jenna A. Agatep Slater