MEMORANDUM OPINION
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant Didlake, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
Plaintiff Chantal Lacasse alleges eight causes of action based oh her sixteen months of employment with Defendant Didlake, Inc. (“Didlake”): Count I, battery; Count II, assault; Count III, false imprisonment; Count IV, intentional infliction of emotional distress; Count V, hostile work environment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”); Count VI, retaliation based on sex pursuant to Title VII; Count VII, discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended (“ADA”); and Count VIII, retaliation in contravention of the ADA.
Defendant Didlake is a 501(c)(3) organization providing services and employment opportunities to people with disabilities. Didlake creates opportunities by for rehabilitative services, employment options, and other assistance to persons with disabilities in Virginia, Maryland, the District of Columbia, and Pennsylvania. In 2015, Didlake served more than 2,000 people with disabilities and directly employed over 800 persons with disabilities through its janitorial services contracts with the federal government.
Plaintiff is a 26-year old female with epilepsy and learning disabilities. In 2011, the Virginia Department of Aging and Rehabilitative Services (“DARS”) determined that Plaintiff was eligible to work in a supported employment environment and referred her to Didlake for assistance. Plaintiff began working with Didlake to find a supported employment position. Such a position involves performing a mainstream job with the assistance of an employment specialist who is also known as a “job coach.” Plaintiffs employment specialist was Lyn Cardona, a Didlake employee in its Rehabilitative Services Department. Ms. Cardona assisted Plaintiff in finding a part-time job, among other services, and initially found her a position working at Giant. After a period of employment with Giant, including ongoing employment support services from Ms. Cardona, Plaintiff lost that job.
On or about January 28, 2013, Plaintiff secured a job working for Didlake at the
Ms, Morales, in turn, was supervised by Didlake Project Manager Roy Evo. When Didlake hired Mr. Evo in 2009, he had more than twenty years of relevant experience and positive professional references. Based on his favorable performance, Did-lake assigned Mr. Evo to be DLA Project Manager in 2011. Mr. Evo was primarily responsible for ensuring that the government customer was satisfied with Didlake’s onsite work. Throughout his four-year tenure with Didlake, Mr. Evo received consistently positive performance appraisals, was never disciplined, and was never the subject of complaints or allegations against him prior to Plaintiffs allegations.
Didlake maintains a sexual harassment policy, and reviews the policy with each employee upon hire. Plaintiff received a copy of this policy, among other pertinent Didlake policies and procedures, when she began work at DLA. Mr. Evo, likewise, received a copy. He signed off on his understanding of the policy when he began working for Didlake. Further, Didlake’s Human Resources Department conducted sexual harassment training at DLA during Plaintiffs tenure on March 20, 2013. This training involved reviewing the policy through a PowerPoint presentation and small group discussions.
DLA is a secure federal facility with restricted access. In order to work for Didlake at DLA, employees must, be screened by the federal government and issued access badges. Plaintiff alleges that on August 15, 2013 toward the end of her shift — between 11 a.m. and 12 p.m. — Mr. Evo found her in a supply closet, closed the door, kissed her, and while restraining her with his hands managed to undo his belt, pull his pants down, undo Plaintiffs belt, and pull her pants down. Plaintiff alleges that the incident ended abruptly because someone knocked on the closet door, though no one was present when the door opened.
On August 17, 2013, (a Saturday), Plaintiff informed her parents that Mr. Evo kissed her. She did not offer more information. Plaintiffs parents did not report Plaintiffs statement to Didlake. She came to work as usual the following Monday, August 19, 2013.
On August 19, 2013, Plaintiff shared her story with two individuals. Plaintiff told a non-supervisory janitorial coworker and someone who assists at the DLA site, but is not an employee of Didlake, that Mr, Evo kissed her. Those individuals relayed the information to Mr. Evo, who promptly reported Plaintiffs statements to Didlake’s Human Resources Department. Because the report came at the end of Plaintiffs work shift, Human Resources arranged to interview her the following day.
On the morning of August 20, 2013, Did-lake’s Manager of Labor and Employee Relations, Susie Kennedy, and Plaintiffs job coach, Ms. Cardona, met privately with Plaintiff to try to determine her claim. Plaintiff relayed that she and Mr. Evo were in a closet together toward the end of her shift on August 15, 2013, and that he kissed her, pulled his pants down and pulled her pants down. Plaintiff stated— for the first time — that Mr. Evo kissed her on another unknown occasion in July 2013. Immediately after receiving this information, Ms. Cardona called Plaintiffs mother and escorted Plaintiff to her transportation
To complete her investigation, Ms. Kennedy spoke with potential witnesses, including Mr. Evo. She confirmed that Mr, Evo was with other people during the time in question on August 15, 2013. When Ms. Kennedy spoke with Mr. Evo, he denied that he ever kissed Plaintiff or did any of the things that she reported. Ms. Kennedy learned that Mr. Evo was conducting interviews for several open positions during the timeframe in question. This information was confirmed by a job coach employed by an entity other than Didlake, who was participating in the interviews, as well as Didlake’s administrative assistant at the DLA site. • ■
Ms. Kennedy drafted a report about her investigation. That report was provided to her supervisor, Trisha Juerling, and other members of Didlake’s senior staff. Because there were no eyewitnesses, Mr. Evo specifically denied the allegations, and Mr. Evo had a confirmed alibi, Ms. Kennedy found that Didlake could not corroborate Plaintiffs allegations. To conclude Did-lake’s investigation, on September 4, 2013, Ms. Kennedy met with Mr. Evo and issued him a memorandum outlining the importance of reporting any potentially inappropriate interactions or communication to Human Resources.
In addition to Ms. Kennedy’s efforts on behalf of Didlake’s Human Resources Department, Ms. Cardona completed an incident report about Plaintiffs allegations, which went to her supervisor and served as part of the basis for a memorandum jointly drafted by the Head of Human Resources and the Head of the Rehabilitation Services Department. This memorandum was provided to Didlake’s then — CEO and was completed in aecordance with Did-lake’s Policy and Procedure on Abuse, Neglect' and Exploitation. To ensure that Plaintiffs rights were fully safeguarded, Didlake’s Rehabilitation Services Department informed Fairfax County Adult Protective Services (“APS”) about Plaintiffs claims and ensured that Didlake cooperated with any further inquiry APS conducted.
Didlake learned that the federal government was conducting its own investigation of Plaintiffs claims and cooperated with that investigation. Federal authorities determined that Mr. Evo’s site badge should be temporarily suspended. In response, Didlake placed Mr. Evo on administrative leave on September 6,2013.
On September 11, 2013, Didlake sent a letter to Plaintiff advising her of the pending status of the investigations, and providing resources for assistance and support.
On September 30, 2013, Plaintiff returned to work after a paid leave of absence. On her first day back, Plaintiff met with Ms. Cardona, Ms. Morales and Ms. Kennedy to review how she could report any concerns about people’s behavior to her supervisor or Human Resources. Did-lake arranged for an exception to the DLA policy so that Plaintiff could carry her cell phone at all times. Plaintiff accepted Did-lake’s additional offer to work alongside an experienced female worker to ease her transition. Plaintiff reported being very happy working with that employee.
Plaintiff received a time study every six months at DLA. The November 22, 2013 time study revealed that her productiveness on the job improved from 65 percent to 89 percent. As a result. Plaintiffs salary was increased from $7.69 per hour to $10.53 per hour.
In December 2013, Didlake placed experienced project manager Egberto Garcia at the DLA site to permanently replace
Lacasse received the first written counseling in December 2013 when her supervisor, Ms. Morales, found her socializing with DLA security guards during a non-break time outside of Plaintiffs assigned work area.
On February 20, 2014, Mr. Garcia issued Plaintiff another piece of written counseling when a disabled African American employee who is mentally retarded and has spastic tendencies complained that Plaintiff called him a “monkey” repeatedly. On April 9, 2014, Mr. Garcia again counseled Plaintiff for unacceptable name-calling when a male Didlake employee complained that Plaintiff was emasculating him by calling him female names such as “Granny” and “Benita” during work hours at DLA.
Plaintiff spread a rumor that a Didlake employee was pregnant with the child of another Didlake employee, who was dating a third Didlake employee. Despite prior counseling, Mr. Garcia put Plaintiff on a three-day paiud suspension. By policy, Didlake suspends disabled employees when prior counseling does not resolve ongoing behavioral issues so that employees can regroup and become successful in the workplace.
Before Mr. Garcia became Project Manager, Plaintiff struggled conducting herself appropriately in the workplace. She was informally counseled accordingly. Plaintiff spent work time socializing with fellow Didlake and DLA employees rather than cleaning the stairwells. Didlake employees raised a concern about Plaintiffs behavior. In Ms. Kennedy’s estimation, “It is when other individuals are being hurt by her behaviors that different action was taken.”
Plaintiff voluntarily resigned from Did-lake on May 19, 2014. Plaintiff reports that she was unhappy with her job because she felt that “no one was talking to her.” While she heard no words to that effect, she believes that coworkers were talking about her when she clocked in and clocked out. In the months preceding her resignation, Didlake’s records demonstrate that Plaintiff engaged in name-calling with several employees and spread rumors about them.
When Plaintiff expressed that she no longer wanted to work at the DLA, Did-lake sought to arrange a meeting to determine next steps and strategies for Didlake to assist her with finding another supported employment position. Plaintiff declined to participate and ended her relationship with Didlake.
Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Summary judgment will be granted unless “a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party” on the evidence presented. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
Plaintiff bears the initial burden of proof as to each and every element of his claims. See United States ex rel. Berge v. Bd. of Trustees of the Univ. of Alabama,
Plaintiffs claims for assault, battery, false imprisonment, and intentional infliction of emotional distress rely on a theory of respondeat superior liability to impute Defendant Didlake for the alleged actions of Mr. Evo against Plaintiff. There is no such liability in this case.
In Virginia, “an employer is liable for the tortious acts of its employee if the employee was performing his employer’s business and acting within the scope of his employment when the tortious acts were committed.” Plummer v. Ctr. Psychiatrists, Ltd.,
Virginia recognizes a scope of employment where
(1) it was expressly or impliedly directed by the employer, or is naturally incident to the business, and (2) it was performed, although mistakenly or ill-advisedly, with the intent to further the employer’s interest, or from some impulse or emotion that was the natural consequence of an attempt to do the employer’s business, “and did not arise wholly from some external, independent, and personal motive on the part of the [employee] to do the act upon his own account.”
Kensington Assocs, v. West,
Count 5 is a claim for hostile work environment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VII prohibits sexual harassment “sufficiently severe or pervasive ‘to alter the conditions of [Plaintiffs] employment and create an abusive working environment.’ ” Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson,
To prevail on a Title VII hostile work environment claim, Plaintiff must establish four elements: unwelcomed conduct; based on her gender; sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and to create a hostile work environment; and some basis for imputing liability to Defendant. Matvia v. Bald Head Island Mgmt., Inc.,
Within the Fourth Circuit, an employer is liable for a sexually hostile work environment created by a supervisor or other employee only when the employer knew or should have known of the illegal conduct and failed to take prompt and adequate remedial action. See Spicer v. Virginia Dep’t of Corrections,
“ [W]here an employer implements timely and adequate corrective measures after harassing conduct has come to its attention, vicarious liability should be barred regardless of the specific motivation for the wrongdoing or the particular cause of action.” Dennis v. County of Fairfax,
Count VII is a claim for discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended. To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination, “a plaintiff must prove: (1) that [s]he has a disability; (2) that [s]he otherwise qualified for the employment or benefit in question; and (3) that [s]he was excluded from the employment or benefit due to discrimination solely on the basis of the disability.” Doe v. Univ. of Md. Med. Sys. Corp.,
To prove constructive discharge, Plaintiff must show that her employer’s actions were deliberate and that working conditions were objectively intolerable, Heiko v. Colombo Savings Bank, F.S.B.,
A reasonable jury could not find that Plaintiff experienced conditions which were objectively intolerable. Plaintiffs claims fall short of what the Fourth Circuit deems a sufficient showing of constructive discharge. See, e.g., Williams v. Giant Food Inc.,
Counts VI and VIII, retaliation claims brought under Title VII and the ADA, respectively, must be dismissed because Plaintiff fails to provide any evidence of retaliation. The parties agree that Plaintiffs employment was not terminated; rather, she resigned. While Plaintiff argues constructive discharge, she brings no evidence thereof.
Title VII retaliation claims may be established by two methods: by “ordinary
Here, Plaintiff fails to provide any direct proof of a retaliatory motivation, which would require non-existent “evidence of conduct or statements that both reflect directly the alleged discriminatory attitude and that bear directly on the contested employment decision.” Brinkley,
To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under the McDonnell Douglas framework, the plaintiff must show: (1) that she engaged -in a protected activity; (2) that the employer took adverse employment action against her; and (3) that there existed a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action. See Munday v. Waste Mgmt. of N. Am., Inc.,
Protected activity within the meaning of Title VII includes opposing discriminatory practices or participating in any manner in a Title VII investigation, proceeding, or hearing. Kubicko v. Ogden Logistics Servs.,
Plaintiffs three-day paid suspension in April 2014, likewise, does not constitute an adverse employment action. A paid suspension is neither a refusal to hire nor a termination, and by design it does not change compensation. Nor does it effect a “serious and tangible” alteration of the “terms, conditions, or privileges of employment.” Storey v. Burns Int’l Security Servs.,
Even if Plaintiff could demonstrate that she suffered an adverse employment action, to be able to make out a causal link she must first allege facts showing that the person who made the adverse decisions knew of her complaint; there is no such evidence here. See Price v. Thompson,