Adelita Martinez spent twenty-three years working as an emergency room technician at Staten Island University Hospital before her career ended unexpectedly. At work, she experienced a panic attack. It was referred to as workplace violence by the hospital. A federal civil lawsuit that has been dragging through the Eastern District of New York since 2019 is centered on that one word swap: misconduct on the one hand, medical crisis on the other.
The case, which was filed under docket number 1:19-cv-02672, revolves around a straightforward but unsettling query. When an employer views a mental health episode as an aggressive act, what happens? Martinez claims that long before the incident that led to her termination, she had told the hospital about her severe anxiety and PTSD. Her lawyers contend that SIUH penalized her for the very symptoms it was meant to treat after failing to provide accommodations for a known disability.
Sitting with that for a moment is worthwhile. This is not an instance of someone concealing a medical condition and being unprepared for its effects. The hospital was aware of this, at least according to court documents. From the outside, it’s still unclear how much documentation was available or how clearly the warning signs were communicated up the chain; details like that are often disputed line by line in depositions that no one outside of the courtroom ever reads.
It may seem insignificant, but Martinez is pursuing two distinct legal theories. One is a claim of adverse employment action, which basically states that she was penalized due to her disability. The other is a claim of failure to accommodate, contending that the hospital failed to assist her in managing it. The advancement of both theories is not always permitted by judges. The court did in this case.
Judge Nina R. Morrison rendered that decision on January 6, 2026, and it wasn’t a clear victory for either party. Martinez’s own request for summary judgment was turned down. The hospital’s motion was partially approved and partially rejected. Interpreting that result, it appears that the judge found enough factual disagreements between the parties to move the main disability claims to trial while eliminating those that didn’t hold up.
Hospital administrators and HR departments have been quietly grappling with this larger pattern for years. The distinction between “this person is in crisis” and “this person is dangerous” isn’t always clear in the moment, and healthcare workers frequently endure trauma at work due to patient assaults, overdose deaths, and violent outbursts in psychiatric wards. Trauma-informed workplace policies were intended to address this type of ambiguity. A key question during the trial will probably be whether SIUH had one in reality as opposed to just on paper.
In their public discussions of the case, employment lawyers have framed it as a cautionary tale for employers under the Human Rights Law of New York City and the Americans with Disabilities Act, which typically offer broader protections than federal statutes alone. As this develops, it’s difficult to ignore how much importance is given to a few words in an incident report—whether someone wrote “aggressive behavior” or “medical episode” can ultimately influence years of legal proceedings.
As of the most recent docket activity, no trial date seems to have been set. Martinez’s willingness to fight through years of motions suggests she isn’t looking for a quiet exit, but cases like this one frequently settle before a jury ever hears opening statements. As of right now, the lawsuit serves as an open reminder that hospitals, like all workplaces, are still trying to figure out how to distinguish between someone who is acting out and someone who is having a breakdown.
