 |
| Steve Cohen, founder of the $39.9 billion hedge fund Point72. Jim McIsaac/Getty Images |
Andrew Pardo, a former summer intern at Point72, the hedge fund run by billionaire Steve Cohen, is suing the firm after alleging he was fired for requesting a desk change related to his PTSD diagnosis. The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in New York State Supreme Court, accuses the $39.9 billion investment firm of disability and racial discrimination.
Pardo joined Point72's 2023 summer internship program following his junior year at the University of Michigan. In his complaint, he claims that after disclosing his diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder reportedly the result of past physical abuse he requested to be relocated to a quieter desk in a less-trafficked area. According to the lawsuit, rather than accommodating his request in good faith, the firm ultimately terminated him.
“The moment plaintiff disclosed his disability, Point72 treated him not as an asset to be supported but as a liability to be managed,” the complaint alleges.
$20 Million Demand and Discrimination Claims
The lawsuit cites violations of New York State and City human rights laws and seeks damages for what it characterizes as discriminatory and retaliatory conduct. While the complaint includes a $20 million damages figure, Pardo’s attorney, Lindsay Goldbrum of Goddard Law, emphasized that the figure is a “procedural placeholder.” She added that no specific amount has been determined as the case is still in its early stages.
In a statement provided to the press, Point72 dismissed the allegations as baseless.
“This complaint, for which the plaintiff is demanding $20 million in damages in connection with his summer internship, is ridiculous and without merit. We intend to address these matters in the appropriate forum,” the firm said.
Details of the Alleged Workplace Triggers
Pardo’s legal filing provides specific details regarding how his PTSD symptoms were triggered during his time at the firm. He was initially seated with his back to a busy corridor, a setup that reportedly heightened his symptoms due to its resemblance to previously traumatic environments. The suit describes this arrangement as a “specific somatic trigger,” causing flashbacks, emotional instability, and panic-like symptoms that significantly impaired his performance.
While he was eventually moved to a different desk, the complaint notes that his internship was terminated shortly afterward a sequence of events his legal team argues shows retaliation rather than support.
Allegations of a Toxic Intern Culture
Beyond the desk issue, Pardo’s suit also portrays the culture at Point72 as unsuitable for individuals managing mental health challenges. He claims the firm promoted a drinking-heavy social culture that contributed to an exclusionary environment for interns like him. The complaint describes one incident where Pardo, following a PTSD episode on his first day, chose not to attend a happy hour event. He later discovered that these gatherings were seen as informal rites of passage, where interns were expected to drink heavily in front of Point72 employees and recruitment staff.
The lawsuit goes further, alleging that a Point72 employee used marijuana with interns a substance legal in New York but still potentially problematic in a corporate setting. While marijuana is legal in the state, the implication in the suit is that such behavior reflects a workplace lacking professionalism and adequate boundaries.
Advocating for Accountability and Mental Health Inclusion
In a public LinkedIn post following the lawsuit filing, Pardo said coming forward was a deeply personal decision and one of the most significant steps of his life. He framed his experience as part of a broader issue affecting young professionals in competitive industries.
“I’m sharing my story publicly because no one should face retaliation or discrimination for advocating for their basic rights and well-being,” he wrote. “Companies must be held accountable when their actions contradict their promises, especially on crucial issues like mental health, diversity, and inclusion.”
Goldbrum echoed those sentiments, stating that the case shines a light on deeper inclusion issues within elite financial institutions environments that often profess commitment to equity but may fall short in practice when real accommodations are requested.
