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.

South Korea’s K-beauty sector is evolving to meet growing international demand for more inclusive products, as fans of K-pop and Korean culture push for cosmetics suitable for a wider range of skin tones.

While K-beauty has been one of Korea’s top cultural exports, it has historically focused on lighter skin tones and promoted products with models who are thin, young, and fair-skinned.

The industry is gradually catching up to the global trend of diversity in beauty.

Co-founded by Melissa Alfer, Seoul-based brand K+Brown is designed for melanin-rich skin and already has a waitlist of several thousand for its first serum, set to launch at the end of February.

Established brands are also expanding shade ranges. K-beauty brand Tirtir, which initially offered just three foundation shades, now provides 40 shades globally, with custom options available up to 150.

Other homegrown brands like Jung Saem Mool Beauty and Beauty of Joseon have introduced products catering to darker skin tones, while experiential stores in Seoul, such as Amore Seongsu, offer custom foundations and lipsticks for international tourists.

Experts note that the popularity of K-pop and K-dramas continues to drive global interest in K-beauty.

According to Mintel, the sector is worth over $90 billion, with South Korea overtaking France in 2024 as the top beauty exporter to the US.

Retail partnerships, including Olive Young’s expansion to the US and K-beauty concept stores in Europe, have further increased accessibility for diverse consumers.

Industry leaders emphasise that inclusivity is now a guiding principle for growth.

Monica Park, head of Tirtir’s global business division, said expanding shade ranges has led to broader adoption, stronger consumer trust, and increased repeat purchases.

K+Brown’s Alfer adds that her brand aims to represent the diverse global K-pop fanbase, serving customers historically underserved by K-beauty products.