Elzeneiny v. District of Columbia (125 F. Supp. 3d 18, 2015)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JAMES E. BOASBERG, United States District Judge

'-Starting in January 2003, Plaintiff Amina Elzeneiny worked as a Budget Analyst for the District of Columbia’s Office of Budget and Planning in its Office of the Chief Financial Officer. Shortly after she began, she informed the Office that she suffered from fibromyalgia, a condition that causes muscle and joint pain, as well as chronic fatigue. In the years that followed, she requested a variety of accommodations from her employer, such as the ability to work on a flexible schedule. The District agreed to nearly all of her requests. Plaintiff nonetheless complains that, months (and, in one- instance, even years) often passed before it did so. She also, alleges that she was harassed ,and retaliated against by, inter alia, being accused of wrongdoing despite a lack of evidence and being given negative and unsubstantiated feedback in her performance evaluations.

In the last few years of her tenure with OBP, Plaintiffs condition worsened, and she sought to take extended medical leave on two occasions. She maintains that "she was wrongly denied such leave the second time around, and that she was retaliated against for taking this time off. Indeed, she claims that she was wrongfully terminated because she took leave, and, when she was reinstated to her position after she appealed, she was transferred to a different office where she had fewer responsibilities. She ultimately tendered her resignation approximately six months later in 2011 and now claims that she was- constructively discharged.

Citing this history, Plaintiff brought this suit against the District of Columbia under the Americans with Disabilities -Act, the D.C. Human Rights Act, and the Family and Medical-Leave Act. Following years of extended proceedings in this case, the District now moves for summary judgment. In doing so, it first argues that the three counts added in her First and Second Amended Complaints — ie., for interference with her rights under the FMLA (Count III), retaliation under the ADA (Count IV), and retaliation under the FMLA' (Count V) — should be dismissed because she did not make herself available for a deposition after including those causes of action. Although further extending pretrial proceedings is hardly a salubrious outcome, the Court believes that rescheduling her deposition is more justifiable than dismissing Counts III-V now.

The-District also contends that much of the conduct Plaintiff complains of in the remaining two counts cannot be pursued in this Court. With respect to her DCHRA claim (Count II), for instance, the city notes that she elected to pursue, adminisr trative remedies,, instead ,of filing suit,-for conduct that took place prior to March, ,10, 2008. As to her other ADA claim (Count I), it asserts that she did not timely file an EEOC charge for much of the activity, which is a prerequisite to bringing such' a claim. Considering what remains of these two" counts, the District believes it is entitled to judgment' as a matter of law because it acted in good faith, granted nearly every accommodation that she requested, did -not subject her to a hostile work environment, and did not create an envirónment so severe as to justify her resignation. : Given its commendable conduct in addressing Elzeneiny’s litany of complaints, the Court largely agrees; as a result, it will grant Defendant’s Motion for -.Summary Judgment on Counts I — II as to almost every allegation.

I. Background

A. Factual Background

, Piecing together the facts in this case is no easy task; the parties’ submissions are often sparse on details, including the timing' of particular events. The Court has nonetheless done its best to provide a coherent narrative, In doing so, it has credited Plaintiffs evidence and- drawn all justifiable inferences in her favor, as she is the nonmoving party.

Plaintiff joined OBP as a Budget Analyst on January 6, 2003. See Opp., Exh. 2 (Declaration of Amina Elzeneiny), ¶2. Shortly after, she informed Gary Ayers, the Branch-Chief-for Administration, that she suffered from fibromyalgia, which causes muscle and joint pain, as well as chronic fatigue. See id., ¶ 3; Mot., Exh,.2 (Deposition of Amina Elzeneiny) at 15:7-20; Mot., Exh. 3 (Interrogatory Responses of Gary Ayers), Ans. No. 3. At the same time, she requested that she be; allowed some flexibility in reporting to work in the morning. because she sometimes had “problem[s] with coming in, in the morning, at eight o’clock every day, for example.” Elzeneiny Depo. at 17:5-18:4.

Six months later, Plaintiff provided Ayers with two letters from her rheumatologist, Richard A. Wilson, Jr., both of which were dated August 7, 2003. See Mot., Exh. 5 (Letter from Richard A. Wilson, Jr., M.D., August 7, 2003) (Wilson Letter 1); Exh. 6 (Letter from Richard A. Wilson, Jr., M.D., August 7, 2003) (Wilson Létter' 2). The letters indicated that Dr. Wilson’s office had been treating Elzeneiny - for some time and that she had been diagnosed with fibromyalgia. See Wilson Letter 1; Wilson Letter 2. They further stated that, “based on her medical condition, [she] should be allowed some flexibility in her work schedule” and “should ... be given access to a ‘handicapped access card.’ ” Wilson Letter 1. The latter request was made because the building entrance she normally used had “some big stairs” and was farther away. Elzeneiny Depo. at 90:1-19.

Roughly three months later, on October 30, 2003, Ayers sent an e-mail to the security office indicating that Elzeneiny should be granted handicapped access to the building. ' See Mot., Exh. 11 (E-mail from Ayers to PSD Access Control (Oct. 30, 2003, 3:38 PM)). About three weeks after that, he wrote to Plaintiff indicating that “pending further medical/legal review and decision,” she would be given “a special exception to the standard OBP flextime policy.” Mot., Exh. 7 (E-mail from Ayers to Elzeneiny (Nov. 21, 2003, 12:33 PM)). Specifically, she would “be allowed to attach [her] doctor’s letter to a signed flextime form as the only required proof of [her] compliance with [the office’s] flextime policy.” Id. He also informed her that she would “be allowed to sign-in on a liberal, non-predetermined flextime basis, as long as [she] maintain[ed] a standard 40-hour work week,” that she would “be allowed to perform some work at home,” and that she would also be given a notebook computer for “work-at-home purposes.” Id.

In December of that year, Plaintiff was asked to move to a cubicle closer to the Branch Chiefs office. See Mot., Exh. 9 (E-mail from Ayers to OBP — All Staff (Dec. 4, 2003, 4:47 PM)). The parties dispute whether she was the only staff member asked to relocate, compare Elzeneiny Depo. at 48:15-17 with Ayers Interrogs., Ans. No. 9; in any event, she felt that she could not do so because it would require her to reorganize her desk during a very busy time, and she was fatigued and in pain as a result of her condition. See Elzeneiny Depo. at 51:8-52:4. She thus promptly contacted her internist, Dr. Mahmoud Mustafa, to discuss the' move. See id. at 46:4-17. She claims that while she was on the-phone, Ayers “stood behind [her] right at the cubicle ... -for 45 minutes.” Id. at 46:18-21. He did so despite the fact that she told him she was on a personal call.. See id. at 46:1-18.

■ Afterwards, Dr. Mustafa sent Dallas Allen, the Director of Budget Formulation, a letter indicating that he was “concerned” that Elzeneiny’s medical issues had not been “fully taken into consideration regarding the proposed re-location of her work station” and “requesting that [the office’s] decision to relocate Ms. Elzenieny [sic] be re-evaluated after an in depth review of her disability.” Mot., Exh. 10 (Letter from Mustafa to Allen, Dec. 10, 2003). Although the agency’s EEO Officer, Teresa Wilson, concluded that “management’s request for [Plaintiff] to relocate was ‘reasonable,’ and did not present an undue burden on [her],” “OBP ultimately granted her request” to remain at her work station. See Ayers Interrogs., Ans. No. 9.; see also Elzeneiny Depo. at 49:17-20.

Over the next several months, in the Spring of 2004, C. Ayo Bryant, the Special Assistant to the Director, indicated in two separate memoranda that Elzeneiny had been approved for a variety of accommodations. The first memo, dated February 26, 2004, stated that Elzeneiny was approved for: 1) “an ergonomic chair with specifications designed to meet the particular needs of [her] disability”; 2) a “flexible arrival time” and permission to “work as many or as few hours each workday ... so long as [she] complete[d] eighty hours in a two-week tour of duty”; 3) “a desktop printer ... located in [her] workspace”; 4) “Handicap Access to the Wilson Building Worksite”; 5) “approval to travel by Taxi rather than Metro rail for work-related local travel”; and 6) permission to remain at her workstation “until and unless an adjustment is indicated as the result of a significant business operation change.” Mot., Exh. 12 (Memorandum from Bryant to Elzeneiny, Feb. 26, 2004).

The second memo, dated May 7, 2004, reiterated these accommodations and stated that she was also approved to use “a laptop on an as needed basis upon [her] request,” even though OBP had generally “limited the regular use of laptop computers to ... Branch chiefs and above.” Mot., Exh. 13 (Memorandum from Bryant to Elzeneiny, May 7, 2004). This later memo also stated that any of “[t]he accommodations ... that ha[d] not already been provided [would] become effective on Monday May 10, 2004,” and that the office would “schedule a follow-up meeting at the end of ninety days ... to review the effectiveness of the accommodations with [her].” Id.

' Apparently, however, the problems continued, and Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the D.C. Office of Human Rights on December 19, 2005. See Opp., Exh. 1 (December 19, 2005, Charge of Discrimination); Elzeneiny Decl., ¶ 7. In it, she alleged discrimination on account of the fact that “[between August 2003 thru December 2004,” she had “requested the use of flextime, telecommuting, filing cabinets, to stay in [her] cubicle, a labtop [sic], handicap access, a desk top printer among other requests,” and that although she “received several of the requested accommodations,” she did so only “after a long and protracted battle with [Defendant].” December 19, 2005, Charge of Discrimination. She also alleged that she had been “subjected ... to harassment,” as evidenced by the fact that she was asked to move to a new cubicle, office personnel attempted to contact her doctor without her permission, Ayers stood over her while she talked on the phone with her doctor, staff made comments to her supervisor that they felt sorry for him having to supervise her, negative comments were included in her “passback folders[,] which are openly seen by the whole office,” and she was “accused] ... of wrong doing with no evidence that there was any wrongdoing.” Id. at 2. She last claimed that the Office had retaliated against her by not giving her extra projects, not including “commendations ... in [her] evaluations,” admonishing her in her FY2004 evaluation for asking for an extension on a project, incorporating unsubstantiated allegations in her June 2005 mid-year evaluation, and failing to. promote her despite the fact that others who joined the office later had been. See id.

In December 2006, as these complaints churned through the administrative process, Plaintiff tore a tendon in her right arm, unrelated to her fibromyalgia. See Elzeneiny Depo. at 78:9-11; 79:3-4. Her doctor thus requested that she be given speech-recognition software. See id. at 78:9-14. Following her surgery in February; he also asked that she “be allowed to work from home.” Id. at 78:14-18; Mot., Exh. 16 (Letter from Mahmoud H. Mustafa to Angelí Jacobs, Mar. 13, 2007). Both requests were approved, and the Office paid approximately $3,000 to provide her with voice-activated software. See Elzeneiny Depo. at 78:18-79:2; Ayers Interrogs:, Ans. No. 7. Sometime in 2007,'the Office also permitted her to use the Virtual Private Network (VPN) so that she could access her work files more easily from home. It had, however, taken “two or three years” to get this. See Elzeneiny Depo. at 98:5-100:14; Elzeneiny Deck, ¶ 5.

Eventually, in October 2007, OHR issued a “No Probable Cause” Determination. Elzeneiny appealed, but the agency affirmed its assessment in March 2008. According to Plaintiff, “Shortly after” this final ruling, “Defendant removed all of [her] accommodations until March 2009.” Elzeneiny Deck, ¶¶ 8-9. Defendant’s evidence indicates that OBP did notify Plaintiff on April 3, 2008, that it was “reinstating the terms of the February 24, 2004 reasonable accommodation memorandum,” and thus “was terminating [its] temporary authorization to sign-in on a liberal, non-predetermined flextime basis, which was granted to accommodate [her] recovery from surgery.” Mot., Exh. 17 (Declaration of Sumita Chaudhuri), Exh. 2 (Memorandum from Sumita Chaudhuri to Elzeneiny, Aug.- 18, 2008). In accordance with the terms of the 2004 agreement, she would háve flexibility to work days of non-standard length so long as she completed 80 hours every two weeks between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. See id. She would, however, have to “adhere to OBP’s normal time and attendance procedures, including prior approval from [her] supervisor for use of leave.” Id. The Office indicated that it would review the accommodations in six months. See id.

. In February 2009, the Office issued another memorandum, this time in response to a letter that Dr. Mustafa wrote on January 6, requesting that Elzeneiny be allowed to work from home. See Chaudhuri Deck, Exh. 3 (Memorandum from Chaudhuri to Elzeneiny, Feb. 23, 2009). The memo stated that she was authorized to work from home under three conditions: 1) that she notify her supervisor of her intent to do so not later than 7:30 a.m. on the day she planned to work from home; 2) that she keep “annotated time sheet[s] of the hours .... worked”; and 3) that the hours “comport to OBP working hours”— ie., Monday through Friday, 7:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.

Yet by March of that year, Elzenein/s health had “deteriorated,” so she “went on approved FMLA leave per [her] doctor’s orders.” Elzeneiny Deck, ¶ 9. This FMLA leave was set to expire on July 10, though she did not return at that time. See Mot., Exh. 18 (Declaration of James Spaulding), Exh. 1 (E-mail from Spaulding to Teresa Wilson (Aug. 18, 2009, 10:22 AM)). Instead, on August 4, 2009, before she returned to work, Dr. Mustafa wrote a letter to the agency noting, “In the past several months, I have recommended on more than one occasion that Ms; Elzeneiny be provided the accommodation of the flexibility of working from home when necessary with flexible hours pursuant to-the Americaps with Disabilities Act,” and that it was his “understanding that these accommodations were taken away from her in April 2008." Spaulding Deck, Exh. 2 (Letter from Mustafa to OBP, Aug. 4, 2009), He continued, “Over the past several months, due to the stress in having to work during normal working hours without the flexibility of working from home and other accommodations, I noticed' a worsening of Ms. Elzeneiny’s fibromyalgia symptoms both in severity and duration," and that, “[a]s a result, it was recommended that she take FMLA leave, which she did.” Id. Though “her symptoms ha[d] improved while oh leave and she [wa]s able "to1 perform the essential functions of her job,” he did not recommend that she return to work under the same conditions on which she left. Id. Indeed, it was his “strong recommendation that Ms. Elzeneiny only return to work at [that] time if she [wa]s afforded the accommodation of working from home with flexible hours, first on a' fulltime basis until [he] evaluate[d] her in 3 to 4 weeks.” Id. On a more permanent basis, he “strongly recommend[ed] that she be afforded the accommodations of working from home on an as needed basis with a flexible work schedule as she had prior to April 2008.” Id. He concluded that Plaintiff was “ready to return to work on August 10, 2009.” Id.

Plaintiff ultimately returned on August 25. See Elzeneiny Deck, ¶'9. James Spaulding, the Associate Deputy CFO, expressed concerns about providing her with any additional accommodations because OBP had to re-work and re-publish the budgets that year and had “fewer staff ... to ■ handle this workload.” - E-mail from Spaulding to Wilson (Aug. 18, 2009, 10:22 AM)). In his-view, “offering] additional accommodations — such as a return to the accommodation she had for her post-surgery period — would greatly diminish [the office’s], ability to. deliver for ,the Mayor and Council.” Id.

Nevertheless, on September 1, 2009, he sent Plaintiff a tiiemorandum granting the request for flexible hours, although with limitations. See Spaulding Deck, Exh. 3 (Memorandum from Spaulding to Elzeneiny, Sept. 1, 2009). Specifically, over the following four weeks, she would be pennitted to work from home for 32 hours in any 80-hour pay period, but those hours had to be performed during ■ OBP’s working hours — i.e., Monday to Friday, from 7:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.. See id. She would also need to notify her supervisor of her intent to work from home “not later than 8:30 am” on the date she planned to do so. Id. The memo concluded by delineating her duties and responsibilities that could be performed from home and those that could not be. See id. Spaulding has since explained that the accommodation was “consistent with most of the requests made by her doctors,” but that “[b]ecause, of the need for .a Budget Analyst to speak to agency finance staff, managers, .and budget book production staff, ... [the office] did not authorize work for credit at 5:00 a,m., or 10:00 p.m. as suggested in Dr. Mustafa’s statement.” Spaulding Deck, ¶ 7.

The accommodation approved in this September 1st memo ultimately “continued beyond the three to four week • period granted.” Mot., Exh. 19 (Declaration of Gordon McDonald), ¶4; see McDonald Deck, Exh. 1 (Memo from McDonald to Elzeneiny, Jan. 29, 2010). Dr. Mustafa nevertheless sent a letter on December 7, 2009, “expressing] concern over OBP’s lack of response to his recommendation that Ms. Elzeneiny be allowed to work from home at her discretion without prior notice or approval from a supervisor.” McDonald Deck, ¶4. Gordon McDonald, the Deputy Chief Financial Officer, thus wrote a memorandum to Plaintiff reiterating that she could work up to 32 hours from home per pay period, and that she could “work days of non-standard length” so long as the hours were completed between 7:30 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. See January 29, 2010 Memo. He explained that “[f]or business reasons,” however, the Office could not provide additional accommodations. Id. Specifically, “OBP’s work environment [wa]s constantly changing and evolving,” and although they had “set ... schedules and calendars, ... emergencies constantly ar[o]se with little to no notice, .which mean[t] that an analyst working from home might not easily be able to meet, the demands of the office.” Id. As far as the Court can tell, this accommodation remained in place over the next year.

Then, on March 10, 2011, Elzeneiny submitted a second leave request, but on March 17, it was denied. See Mot., Exh. 20 (Declaration of LaSharn Moreland), ¶ 3. A few days later, Plaintiffs employment was terminated. See id., ¶ 4. According to the District, it was because her supervisor, Eric Cannady, believed she was unable to perform the job competently. See Def.’s Statement of Facts, ¶ 41; see also Mot., Exh. 1 (Declaration of Eric Cannady), ¶¶ 2, 4-5. Despite this purported justification, however, the agency reinstated Elzeneiny after she appealed her termination and “it was determined that an administrative error .occurred- and her FMLA eligibility should have been considered under both Federal and District FMLA.” Moreland Deck, ¶ 5.

Not long after Elzeneiny returned to work, she was reassigned to a budget-analyst position in another department, based on “her skills and inability to work in a fast paced environment.” Id., ¶-6. According to the District, she was thus “returned to the same position, but to a worksite that was less demanding”; there was no “loss in seniority, grade or pay.” Id. Plaintiff avers, however, that in the new position she “was essentially given no work to do,” and “[wjhat little work [she] was' given involved data entry or copying.” Elzeneiny Deck, ¶ 11(Z). From her point of view, “[t]he position to which [she] was reassigned had no chance of career advancement ... because [she] was no longer performing the- budget analyst duties [she] had been performing.” Id, ¶ ll(m). She thus resigned six months later, in November 2011. See Moreland Deck, ¶ 7,

B. Procedural Background

This case has wended its long and tortuous way through many procedural stages, and the relevant ones are recounted in considerable detail in the Analysis section infra.. It is enough to say here that Plaintiff first filed this suit against the District, its Chief Financial Officer (Natwar Gandhi), and OCFO on May 13, 2009, long before her ultimate resignation, and the case was initially assigned to Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. See ECF No. 1. Her Complaint asserted claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,-as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et'seg., the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S-.C. § 12101 et seq„ and the D.C. Human Rights Act, D.C. Code § 2-1401.01 et seq. Defendants subsequently moved for partial dismissal, and on March 29, 2010, Judge Kollar-Kotelly issued an Opinion dismissing Gandhi and OCFO from the suit; she also dismissed Plaintiffs Title VII claim, as well as her DCHRA claim to the extent it sought unliquidated damages. See Elzeneiny v. District of Columbia, 699 F.Supp.2d 31 (D.D.C.2010). The case was then transferred to this Court in the spring of 2011. See Docket Entry, March 29, 2011.

As the litigation progressed, Plaintiff twice successfully moved to amend her Complaint. Her First Amended Complaint, filed on October 31, 2011, added a cause of action under the Family and Medical Leave Act. Her Second Amended Complaint, filed on November 22, 2013, added two counts — the first augmented her retaliation claim under the ADA, and the second expanded her retaliation claim under the FMLA. As it currently stands, the operative Second Amended Complaint comprises the following counts: ADA Violation (Count I), DCHRA Violation (Count II), FMLA Violation (Count III), Retaliation under ADA (Count IV), and Retaliation under FMLA (Count V). Now, following the close of a second period of discovery, the District moves for summary judgment.

II. Legal Standard

Summary judgment may be granted if “the movant shows that 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); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Holcomb v. Powell, 433 F.3d 889, 895 (D.C.Cir.2006). A fact is “material” if it is capable of affecting the substantive outcome of the litigation. See Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505; Holcomb, 433 F.3d at 895. A dispute is “genuine” if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party. See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007); Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505; Holcomb, 433 F.3d at 895. “A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion” by “citing to particular parts of materials in the record” or “showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(1).

When a motion for summary judgment is under consideration, “[t]he evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in [her] favor.” Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505; see also Mastro v. PEPCO, 447 F.3d 843, 850 (D.C.Cir.2006); Aka v. Wash. Hosp. Ctr., 156 F.3d 1284, 1288 (D.C.Cir.1998) (en banc). On a motion for summary judgment, the Court must “eschew making credibility determinations or weighing the evidence.” Czekalslci v. Peters, 415 F.3d 360, 363 (D.C.Cir.2007). The nonmoving party’s opposition, however, must consist of more than mere unsupported allegations or denials and must be supported by affidavits, declarations, or other competent evidence, setting forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The nonmovant is required to provide evidence that would permit a reasonable jury to find in its favor. Laningham v. Navy, 813 F.2d 1236, 1242 (D.C.Cir.1987). If the nonmovant’s evidence is “merely colorable” or “not significantly probative,” summary judgment may be granted. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 249-50, 106 S.Ct. 2505.

III. Analysis

The District’s Motion for Summary Judgment presents several issues for decision. First, the city contends that Counts III-V of Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint should be dismissed because she failed to “cooperate[] with discovery and ... prosecute [these] new claims.” Mot. at 13. It then insists that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on her DCHRA claim (Count II) to the extent it is based on conduct prior to March 10, 2008, because she elected to pursue administrative remedies for those acts instead. As for Plaintiffs general ADA claim (Count I), it urges that she is barred from challenging much of the allegedly unlawful conduct because she did not timely file an EEOC charge related to such acts. As to what remains of these two counts, the District next argues that it acted in good faith and provided her with nearly every accommodation she requested. It also maintains that the conduct Elzeneiny complains of simply does not rise to the level of a hostile work environment and was not so ¿unbearable as to establish a constructive discharge.

As a threshold matter, the Court first addresses Plaintiffs contention that it should disregard the declarations submitted in support of Defendant’s Motion because they are legally deficient. Deciding otherwise, the Court next considers whether Counts III-V should be dismissed as a discovery sanction. It thereafter moves to Counts I — II, looking first at their permissible scope and finally at the merits of what is left standing.

A. Admissibility of Declarations

Elzeneiny initially argues that the declarations the District submitted in support of its Motion are legally invalid and should not be considered. See Opp. at 2-3. She identifies three specific flaws. First, in contravention of Federal Rule of Civil Pror cedure 56(c)(4), the declarations state that they were made “to the best of the declarant’s knowledge, information and belief,” rather than solely on the declarant’s personal knowledge. See Opp. at 2. Second, also in violation of that rule, they did not affirmatively state that the declarants are competent to testify to the matters addressed therein. See id. Finally, the declarants did not aver under penalty of perjury that the statements were true and correct, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1746 and Local Rule 5.1(h). See id. at 2.

The Court agrees that Defendant’s declarations were sloppily drafted. It does not, however, believe that it must disregard them in their entirety. The last of the defects — i.e., the failure to attest under penalty of perjury that the affidavits are true and correct — has now been remedied, as the District,refiled each of them with the necessary averment. See Reply, Exh. 26 (Refiled Affidavits). This is sufficient. See Hainey v. Dep’t of the Interior, 925 F.Supp.2d 34, 41 n. 5 (D.D.C.2013) (“[W]hile the Court reiterates that Mr. Lohr’s original affidavit satisfied the requirements of § 1746, the unequivocal statement in his revised declaration removes any and all doubt.”). (The Court, for ease of reference, cites the original declarations, which are the same in substance.)

The two remaining flaws present a slightly tougher issue. “A principal command of Rule 56[ (c)(4) ] is straightforward: ‘Supporting and opposing affidavits’ on summary-judgment motions ‘shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein.’ ” Londrigan v. FBI, 670 F.2d 1164, 1174 (D.C.Cir.1981). And “[although the rule’s directive with respect to the admissibility of an affidavit’s contents on summary judgment has been liberally construed, its requirement of personal knowledge by the affiant is unequivocal, and cannot be circumvented. An affidavit based merely on information and belief is unacceptable.” Id. (citations omitted). The D.C. Circuit has thus struck portions of an affidavit that could not have been made on personal knowledge and on which the affiant was therefore incompetent to testify. See id. at 1174-75 (finding affiant not competent to testify to several matters because a “[c]areful reading” of affidavit “reveals that a great deal of what it says could not possibly have been based on the affiant’s personal knowledge”). Where declarations have, moreover, stated that they are made on knowledge and belief and do not clearly demonstrate the affiants’ personal knowledge of the facts, the circuit has found it-inappropriate to rely on them at summary judgment. See Harris v. Gonzales; 488 F.3d 442, 446 (D.C.Cir.2007).

Because Defendant’s declarations here state that they are made on “knowledge, information and belief,” the Court treads carefully in relying on them. It accepts only those statements in the declarations that clearly indicate personal knowledge, see, e.g., Moreland Decl., ¶ 4 (“I received a termination request for Ms. Elzeneiny____ I reviewed and approved the termination request.”), or are supported by adequate .documentation.' See, e.g., Moreland Decl., ¶ 4 (“[0]n April 27, 2011, the Agency reinstated Ms. Elzeneiny and approved her FMLA, effective March 9, 2011.”) (citing “Exhibit 6”); Moreland Decl., Exh. 6 (Letter from Moreland to Elzeneiny, Apr. 27, 2011) (“This letter reverses your March 22, 2011 termination letter and reinstates you with the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO). Per your request, the OCFO is placing you on Family Medical Leave (FMLA) effective March 9, 2011.”). The Court believes that this determination strikes the appropriate balance.

B. Counts III-V

The next threshold issue is the causes of action properly before the Court. In its Motion, the District urges dismissal of Counts III-V — viz., FMLA violation, ADA retaliation, and FMLA retaliation— of the Second Amended Complaint as a sanction for Plaintiffs' “dilatory conduct” during discovery. ' See Mot. at 20. More specifically, it asserts that Elzeneiny “refus[ed] to make herself available for a deposition” after lodging supplemental claims in her Amended Complaints, and that such refusal constituted a “clear violation” of an order from this Court. See Mot. at 16, 20. In support of its request, it invokes Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A), which authorizes sanctions when a party “fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery,” as well as Rule 41(b), which states that “a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it” where a plaintiff “fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order.” Yet, while the Court possesses “broad discretion to impose sanctions for discovery violations,” Bonds v. Dist. of Columbia, 93 F.3d 801, 807 (D.C.Cir.1996), it does not believe such measures are appropriate here.

A brief recitation of the procedural history leading up to the present Motion may prove useful. Elzeneiny initiated this suit on May 13, 2009, alleging discrimination and retaliation in breach of the ADA (Count I) and the DCHRA (Count II). See Compl., ¶¶ 16-25. Defendant subsequently deposed her on December 1, 2010, see Elzeneiny Depo., and discovery closed just a few weeks later. See ECF No. 18 (Order of December 8, 2010).

Such pause, however, was merely temporary. In the ensuing years, Plaintiff twice amended her pleadings — each time with Defendant’s consent. See ECF No. 42 (October 28, 2011, First Motion to Amend Complaint); ECF No. 64 (November 20, 2013, Second Motion to Amend Complaint). Both amendments added claims based on new factual developments. The first time around, she incorporated a claim for violations of the FMLA (Count III). "See First'Am. Compl., ¶¶ 28-36. In the next iteration, she added separate counts for retaliation under the ADA (Count IV) and FMLA (Count' V). ' See Sec. Am. Compl., ¶¶ 34-57.

The Court, accordingly, issued, a new Scheduling Order on December 4, 2013, which reopened discovery for the supplemental counts through March . 7, 2014. That deadline was later extended on multiple occasions, see Minute Orders of March 3, 2014, May 5, 2014 and July 2, 2014, in large part due to scheduling difficulties., In particular, Elzeneiny had since moved back to her native Egypt, and, due to health and monetary constraints, she required “ample time to obtain a reasonably priced plane ticket to come to the United States for her deposition.” ECF No. 70 (July 1, 2014, Motion for Extension .of Time).

On October 9, 2014, ten months after reopening discovery, the Court held a status conference. At that hearing — which the Court has reviewed by listening to the audio recording — it told both parties that this long-delayed case simply had to move forward. In pursuit of that ambition, the ‘ Court directed that Elzeneiny’s deposition be taken in the District of Columbia within 45 days. See October 9, 2014, Minute Order (“[T]he Court ORDERS that ... Plaintiffs deposition shall take place in Washington, DC, by . November 24, 2014;...”). Notwithstanding the Court’s unambiguous directive, however, Plaintiffs deposition remains outstanding.

Defendant lays the blame for that lapse squarely at Elzeneiny’s feet. According to the District, “The burden was on Plaintiff to comply with the Court’s order and Plaintiff failed;to do so.” Reply at 6. Indeed, says Defendant, “Plaintiff intentionally refus[ed] to return to the District for a .deposition in clear violation of this Court’s order of October 9, 2014.” Mot. at 20-21. It further notes that “she did not seek an extension” or “a modification of the order,” and instead “simply chose to ignore the order.” Mot. at 21. Defendant also states that it sent an e-mail to Plaintiffs counsel on November 7, 2014, inquiring about dates for the deposition, but it received no response. See Reply, Exh. 27 (E-mail from David Jackson to Kathy Potter (Nov. 7, 2014, 4:01 PM)). It believes that such dereliction on Plaintiffs part warrants sanctions.

Elzeneiny tells a different story. She maintains that she “has at all times been prepared to make herself available for deposition.” Opp. at 3. She additionally contends that the October 9, 2014, Minute Order “did not impose upon [her] a duty to set her own deposition,” that her counsel did not receive the November 7, 2014, email, and — most fundamentally — that she did not “willfully or otherwise disobey this Court’s order.”' See id. at 6-8. Rather, as she recounts, her physician advised her after the status conference that she should not travel in light of her ongoing medical issues. See id. at 7; id., Exh. 2 (Note from Dr. Hussien H. Rizk, October 21, 2014). Although she remained willing to travel to the United States for a deposition if strictly necessary, her counsel e-mailed Defendant to ask whether it would be willing to depose her by video or Skype in light of her doctor’s recommendation. See Opp., Exh. 3 (E-mail from Kathy Potter to David Jackson (Nov. 12, 2014, 10:21 AM)). The District never responded. See Opp. at 7. In fact, Defendant was “utterly] silen[t]” on the subject of the deposition until January 26, 2015, at which point it informed her attorney of its intention to seek dismissal of Counts III-V. See id. at 8.

The D.C. Circuit has cautioned that “ ‘dismissal is a sanction of last resort to be applied only after less dire alternatives have been explored without success’ or would obviously prove futile.” Bonds, 93 F.3d at 808 (quoting Shea v. Donohoe Constr. Co., 795 F.2d 1071, 1075 (D.C.Cir.1986)). Although it is certainly frustrated by the lack of progress, the Court does not believe that such a draconian measure is justified here. According to Plaintiffs account — and as corroborated by her evidentiary submissions — her counsel attempted to coordinate the deposition prior to the November 24 deadline. While Defendant’s counsel claims he never received that communication, he does not assert that it was never sent. That some technical or human error apparently prevented the e-mail from reaching its intended recipient does not undermine the fact that Elzeneiny, through her counsel, made good-faith efforts to comply with the Court’s order.

To be sure, Plaintiff could have done more, such as following up with Defendant by phone or notifying the Court of her inability to make contact with opposing counsel. But the District could also have stepped up its efforts, and, in any event, Elzeneiny’s failure to chase down Defendant to arrange her own deposition does not warrant the harsh sanction of dismissal. While the Court is loath to extend this already-protracted litigation any further, it will deny the District’s request without prejudice and will allow additional time for the parties to complete Plaintiffs deposition. It will discuss the precise logistics of that deposition, as well as a briefing schedule for the District to renew this Motion, at a subsequent status hearing.

C. Permissible Scope of Counts I and II

Before reaching the merits of Plaintiffs claims under Counts I and II, the District raises two procedural hurdles to their viability. It first argues that she cannot obtain relief under the DCHRA for conduct that occurred prior to March 10, 2008, because she elected to pursue administrative remedies for those acts. It then asserts that she cannot seek relief under the ADA for certain conduct because she did not file a timely charge with the EEOC. Agreeing on both fronts, the Court will address these issues in turn.

1. DCHRA

The DCHRA was enacted “to secure an end ... to discrimination for any reason other than that of individual merit, including ... discrimination by reason of ... disability.” D.C. Code § 2-1401.01. To aid its enforcement, the Act provides:

Any person claiming to be aggrieved by an unlawful discriminatory practice shall have a cause of action in any court of competent jurisdiction for damages and such other remedies as may be appropriate, unless such person has filed a complaint [with the D.C. Office of Human Rights]; provided, that where the Office has dismissed such complaint on the grounds of administrative convenience, or where the complainant has withdrawn a complaint, such person shall maintain all rights to bring suit as if no complaint had been filed.

Id. § 2-1403.16(a) (emphasis added). Individuals alleging violations of the DCHRA are thus offered two possible paths to redress: they may file a complaint either in court or with OHR. See id.; § 2-1403.03(b). In general, they cannot do both. See Carter v. District of Columbia, 980 A.2d 1217, 1223 (D.C.2009) (“As we have explained, the jurisdiction of the court and OHR are mutually exclusive in the first instance. Thus, where one opts to file with OHR, he or she generally may not also file a complaint in court.”) (internal quotation marks, alterations, and citations omitted). Indeed, once a plaintiff files a complaint with OHR, she may only file an independent suit in two narrow instances: if OHR dismissed the case on administrative convenience or if the individual withdrew her OHR complaint before a probable-cause determination was rendered. See Jones v. District of Columbia, 41 F.Supp.3d 74, 79 (D.D.C.2014) (citing Anderson v. U.S. Safe Deposit Co., 552 A.2d 859, 861-63 (D.C.1989)).

Contending that neither of these exceptions is applicable here, the District argues that Plaintiff cannot assert a DCHRA claim for acts prior to March 10, 2008, because she chose to seek relief for those acts through OHR’s administrative channels. In support of its position,' it notes that Elzeneiny filed a Charge of Discrimination with OHR on March 28, 2006, alleging discrimination from February 1, 2003, onwards. See Mot., Exh. 21 (March 28, 2006, EEOC Charge of Discrimination) at 1. OHR thereafter conducted an investigation and issued a Letter of Determination on October 31, 2007, in which it concluded that Plaintiff had failed to establish probable cause to believe OBP had denied her reasonable accommodations,.-subjected her to harassment, or retaliated against her. See Mot., Exh. 22 (OHR Letter of Determination) at 24. Elzeneiny applied for reconsideration, and on March 10, 2008, the Director of OHR upheld its earlier decision. See Mot., Exh. 23 (OHR Reconsideration Determination).

Perhaps because it is so well established that aggrieved individuals must choose between filing a complaint with OHR or in a court of competent jurisdiction — subject only to the two aforementioned exceptions — Plaintiff does not contest this point in her Opposition. And while the Court is somewhat skeptical that the relevant cutoff date is the date on which OHR affirmed its decision, as opposed to, say, the last date covered by the agency’s investigation, Plaintiff has failed to respond to Defendant’s argument on this front, effectively conceding the point. See, e.g., Hopkins v. Women’s Div., General Bd. of Global Ministries, 284 F.Supp.2d 15, 25 (D.D.C.2003) (“It is well understood in this Circuit that when a plaintiff files an opposition to a dispositive motion and addresses only certain arguments raised by the defendant, a court may treat those arguments that the plaintiff failed to address -as conceded.”) (citing FDIC n Bender, 127 F.3d 58, 67-68 (D.C.Cir.1997), and Stephenson v. Cox, 223 F.Supp.2d 119, 121 (D.D.C.2002)). She, accordingly, cannot seek relief under the DCHRA for conduct that occurred before March 10, 2008.

2. ADA

The District also questions the permissible scope of Plaintiffs ADA claim on the ground that she failed to exhaust her administrative remedies with the EEOC. More specifically, it believes that she filed her first EEOC Charge of Discrimination too late to challenge many of the allegedly unlawful practices, and that her second EEOC Charge of Discrimination was too vague. The Court will analyze these issues separately.

a. Timeliness of First EEOC Charge

It is well established that “[bjefore bringing suit in federal court, ADA plaintiffs, like those under Title VII, must exhaust their administrative remedies by filing an EEOC charge and giving that agency a chance to act on it.” Marshall v. Fed. Exp. Corp., 130 F.3d 1095, 1098 (D.C.Cir.1997) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a) and Park v. Howard Univ., 71 F.3d 904, 907-09 (D.C.Cir.1995)); see also 42 U.S.C. § 12117 (incorporating procedural provisions of Title VII for ADA causes of action); Mayers v. Laborers’ Health & Safety Fund of North America, 478 F.3d 364, 368 (D.C.Cir.2007) (“The ADA incorporates the procedural provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964----”). Such charge must be filed “within a specified period ... after the alleged unlawful employment practice occurred.” Hodge v. United Airlines, 666 F.Supp.2d 14, 20 (D.D.C.2009) (quoting Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc., 550 U.S. 618, 623-24, 127 S.Ct. 2162, 167 L.Ed.2d 982 (2007)). Specifically, an aggrieved individual must file a charge within 180 days of the alleged discriminatory act, unless she has “instituted proceedings with a State or local agency with authority to grant or seek relief from such practice,” in which case she must file the charge within 300 days. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e~5(e)(l).

The District concedes that Plaintiff had the benefit of the longer 300-day filing window. See Mot. at 25. It argues, however, that she did not file her first EEOC charge until March 28, 2006, and that much of the conduct of which she complains occurred more than 300 days before that date — ie., prior to June 1, 2005. Such acts, it continues, are thus not properly before this Court.

In response, Elzeneiny asserts that there is a genuine dispute of material fact as to the date on which she filed her initial EEOC charge. She insists that she filed it on December 19, 2005. She also argues that the Court can and should consider conduct that occurred outside of the 300-day window — ie., before February 22, 2005 — because she has alleged continuing violations of the ADA. In such instances, she argues, all that matters is that she filed the charge within 300 days of any of the discriminatory, harassing, or retaliatory acts.

As to the first point, the Court'agrees that there is a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the date on which Elzeneiny filed her first EEOC charge. For its part, the District has submitted a Charge of Discrimination dated March 28, 2006. See March 28, 2006/EEOC Charge of Discrimination. It has also provided excerpts from Plaintiffs deposition in which, it claims, she admitted that the March 2006 charge was the first that she filed; See Elzeneiny Depo. at 144:18-145:4. The testimony, however, is not as clear as Defendant suggests. Plaintiff has, moreover, submitted what appears to be a Charge of Discrimination dated December 19, 2005, see December 19, 2005, EEOC Charge of Discrimination, as well as a sworn declaration stating that she filed an Affidavit and Charge of Discrimination with OHR on December 19, 2005, which was cross-filed with the , EEOC. See Elzeneiny Decl., ¶7. Because the Court cannot now resolve this factual dispute, 'it assumes that Plaintiff is right — ie., that she filed on the earlier date and that February 22, 2005, is the relevant cut-off for determining which acts, are time barred.

As to Plaintiffs second point, she is correct that “if the alleged acts constitute one similar pattern or practice and at least one illegal act took place within the filing period, then the complaint of discrimination is not time-barred and acts outside the statutory period may be considered for purposes of liability.” Mayers, 478 F.3d at 368 (internal quotation marks and- citation omitted). The D.C. Circuit has pointed out, however, that the continuing-violations doctrine “has. two crucial limiting principles, ... both derived from the Supreme Court’s ruling in National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 122 S.Ct. 2061, 153 L.Ed.2d 106 (2002). The first is that “the doctrine has no applicability to discrete acts such as termination, failure to promote, denial or transfer, or refusal to hire because'each incident of discrimination and each retaliatory adverse employment action constitutes a separate actionable unlawful employment practice.” Mayers, 478 F.3d at 368 (quoting Morgan, 536 U.S. at 114, 122 S.Ct. 2061) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). “[Discrete discriminatory acts are,” therefore, “not actionable if time barred, even when they are related to acts alleged in timely filed charges.” Morgan, 536 U.S. at 113, 122 S.Ct. 2061 (emphasis added).' The second limiting principle is that “although plaintiffs may invoke the continuing violations doctrine for claims that by their nature occur not ‘on any particular day1 but ‘over a series of days or perhaps years,’ ” — i.e., hostile-environment claims — “they must allege that at least one ‘act contributing to the claim occurred] within the filing period.’ ” Mayers, 478 F.3d at 368 (quoting Morgan, 536 U.S. at 115, b122 S.Ct. 2061).

The first Morgan principle disposes of many of the alleged discriminatory and retaliatory acts that Plaintiff seeks to challenge here. For instance, to the extent the District failed to provide her with reasonable accommodations in a timely manner, each such failure constituted a discrete act of discrimination that ended, at the very latest, on the day that the relevant accommodation was provided. See id. at 368-69 (“[Defendant’s] failure to provide the electric tools was a discrete act of discrimination that ended, at the latest, in June 2000 when [it] provided the requested equipment — well outside the 180-day period leading up -to [Plaintiff’s] EEOC complaint.”). Plaintiff is thus barred from challenging any potential failure of the District to timely provide: 1) handicap access to the Wilson Building, which was granted in December 2003; 2) an ergonomic, chair, which was provided in November 2003, see May 7, 2004, Bryant Memo at 1; 3) a desktop printer, which was provided sometime before May 2004, see id. at 2; 4) a laptop computer to use at home, which was provided in 2004, see id.; 5) a flexible arrival time, which was approved in November 2003, see id. at 2-3; 6) permission to stay in her.cubicle, which it formally provided in February 2004, see February 26, 2004, Bryant Memo at 2; and 7) approval to use taxi .cabs for work-related travel, which was granted in February 2004. See id.

To the extent the District retaliated against her for exercising her rights under the ADA, each adverse action was also a discrete act subject to the 300-day filing period. See Morgan, 536 U.S. at 114, 122 S.Ct. 2061 (“Each incident of discrimination and each retaliatory adverse employment decision constitutes a separate actionable ‘unlawful employment practice.’ ”); see also, e.g., Dickens v. Dep’t of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs, 298 Fed.Appx. 2, 3 (D.C.Cir.2008) (unpublished) (noting that Morgan “establishes that for statute-of-limitations purposes there are only two kinds of'Title VII violations: ‘discrete acts’ and ‘hostile work environments’”). Any retaliatory actions taken before February 22, 2005, were thus not timely challenged before the EEOC and cannot be pursued here.'

Plaintiff is right, however, to point ■ out that “[h]ostile environment claims are different in kind from discrete acts.” Morgan, 536 U.S. at 115, 122 S.Ct. 2061. As the Supreme Court explained in Morgan, such a claim “is composed of a series of separate acts- that collectively constitute one ‘unlawful employment practice.’ ” Id. at 117, 122 S.Ct. 2061 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(l)). Thus, as long as “an act contributing to the claim occurs within the filing period, the entire time period of the hostile environment may be considered by a court for the purposes of determining liability.” Id. Yet courts evaluating the timeliness of hostile-work-environment claims must bear in mind that

[b]oth incidents barred by the statute of limitations and ones not barred can qualify as “part of the same actionable hostile environment claim” only if they are adequately linked into a coherent hostile environment claim — if, for example, they “involve[] the same type of employment actions, occur[] relatively frequently, and [are] perpetrated by the same managers.”

Baird v. Gotbaum (Baird I), 662 F.3d 1246, 1251 (D.C.Cir.2011) (alterations in original) (quoting Morgan, 536 U.S. at 120-21, 122 S.Ct. 2061). The timeliness of Elzeneiny’s EEOC charge thus depends on whether at least one of the acts comprising a hostile work environment took place after February 22, 2005. Without yet delving into whether the acts .she complains of are sufficiently related and severe, the Court notes that at least some of the conduct she says was part of a hostile work environment occurred after February 22, 2005. See December 19, 2005, EEOC Charge (averring that in June 2005, her “midyear evaluation for FY 2005 reflected many accusations which have not been substantiated”). The Court, accordingly, will not dismiss the hostile-work-environment claim on timeliness grounds.

b. Adequacy of Second EEOC Charge

Although its argument is rather hazy, the District also contests the adequacy of Plaintiffs second EEOC Charge. See Mot. at 27. It asserts that the Charge, which alleged disability discrimination and retaliation beginning on April 3, 2008, did not “identify a single discrete act of discrimination or retaliation.” Id. It also notes that “Plaintiff d[id] not ... identify any hostile act committed by any supervisor or by any other person.” Id.

As discussed above, exhaustion is a prerequisite to bringing suit under the ADA. And “[a] vague or circumscribed EEOC charge will not satisfy the exhaustion requirement for claims it does not fairly embrace.” Marshall, 130 F.3d at 1098. This is so because “[allowing a complaint to encompass allegations outside the ambit of the predicate EEOC charge would circumvent the EEOC’s investigatory and conciliatory role, as well as deprive the charged party of notice of the charge, as surely as would an initial failure to file a timely EEOC charge.” Id. (quoting Schnellbaecher v. Baskin Clothing Co., 887 F.2d 124, 127 (7th Cir.1989)) (internal quotation marks omitted). At the same time, “every detail of the eventual complaint need not be presaged in the EEOC filing.” Id. Rather, “the substance of an ADA claim, like that of a Title VII claim, must fall within the scope of ‘the administrative investigation that can reasonably be expected to follow the charge of discrimination.’ ” Id. (quoting Park, 71 F.3d at 907)).

Here, Plaintiffs second EEOC Charge stated:

On March 10, 2008 the DC Office of Human Rights ruled ... that the Office of Budget & Planning had accommodated me. Shortly after the ruling. by DCOHR, the previously granted reasonable accommodations for my disability were removed. I continue to need the flexibility to work at home, and to have flexible work hours. I have also been retaliated against for having filed the complaint with DCOHR and for filing a complaint with the DC Office of Disability Rights in my quest for reasonable accommodation.

Mot., Exh. 24 (EEOC Charge of Discrimination, March 9, 2009). Although Defendant seems to contend that this did not clearly articulate any claim, it plainly “embraced” her contention that she was discriminated and retaliated against when, in April 2008, the District revoked the accommodations it had previously provided to her. To the extent Defendant’s argument is that she should have identified every specific accommodation that was withdrawn, it is mistaken. The EEOC’s investigation would surely have looked into this and the District would certainly have known which accommodations it had previously provided and thus which accommodations were alleged to. have been taken away. This Charge did not, however, encompass any potential claim of discrimination she may have had for the District’s failure to promptly provide speech-recognition software in 2006 or VPN access in 2007. See Marshall, 130 F.3d at 1098 (plaintiff failed to exhaust where EEOC charge “ma[de] no mention of any refusal to accommodate her lifting limitations or even of her termination”).

The Court questions whether other claims — such as for the denial of her request to work from home without limitation and for delays in providing filing cabinets in 2010 — have been properly exhausted. Neither party has submitted an EEOC Charge evidencing such. Yet because the District has not raised that .argument, the Court will not dismiss them on this.basis.

Now having defined the proper, albeit substantially limited, scope of Counts I and II, the Court may proceed to’ ■ the merits of what remains. This, the city correctly contends, is very little.

D... Merits of Counts I and II

In attacking Elzeneiny’s extant allegations, .the District insists that it acted in good faith and provided her with “just about every accommodation] she requested.” Mot. at 29-30. It also contends that the alleged harassment did not rise to the level of a hostile work environment, and that Plaintiff cannot show that she was constructively discharged or otherwise retaliated against. The Court will address these arguments in turn.

In doing so, it analyzes her claims under the ADA and DCHRA simultaneously, as the standards under both are sufficiently similar under the circumstances to dispense with independent analysis. See, e.g., Hunt v. District of Columbia, 66 A.3d 987, 990 (D.C.2013) (“Our decisions under the DCHRA regarding whether an employee was discriminated against because of a ‘disability’ effectively incorporate judicial construction of related antidiscrimination provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act.”); Giles v. Transit Employees Fed. Credit Union, 794 F.3d 1, 5, 2015 WL 4217787, at *2 (D.C.Cir.2015) (“When evaluating claims brought under the DCHRA, decisions construing the ADA are considered persuasive.”) (internal quotation marks, citations, and alterations omitted). For ease of analysis — and because Defendant is not prejudiced — the Court also applies the broader ADA window (for violations after February 22, 2005), as opposed to the narrower DCHRA one (anything after March 10,2008).

1. Failure to Provide Reasonable Accommodations

■ To make out a failure-to-accommodate claim under the ADA, Elzeneiny must show that: (1) she was disabled within the meaning of the ADA;. (2) the District was aware of her disability; (3) she could have done her job with reasonable accommodations; and (4) she was denied such accommodations. See 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a), (b)(5)(A); Carr v. Reno, 23 F.3d 525, 529 (D.C.Cir.1994). The District concedes, for purposes of its Motion, that Plaintiff had a disability and that it was aware- of this disability. See Mot. at 28-29. It states that “Plaintiff cannot, however, establish the third and fourth elements.” Id. at 29.

In her declaration and brief, Plaintiff acknowledges that she “was provided with many of the[] accommodations” that she requested. See Elzeneiny Deck, ¶ 5; Opp. at 11. Her principal complaint is that “it was months before [she] received man/’ of them, “and in the case of VPN [access], it took three years.” Elzeneiny Deck, ¶5.

The D.C. Circuit has suggested that “there are certainly circumstances in which a ‘long-delayed accommodation could be considered’ unreasonable and hence ‘actionable under the ADA.’” Mogenhan v. Napolitano, 613 F.3d 1162, 1167-68 (D.C.Cir.2010) (quoting Mayers, 478 F.3d at 368). Other circuits and courts have likewise recognized that, at some point, a delay in providing an accommodation could constitute an ADA violation. See Selenke v. Med. Imaging of Colo., 248 F.3d 1249, 1262 (10th Cir.2001) (citing cases in which courts concluded that delays in providing reasonable accommodations could violate ADA); Jay v. Internet Wagner Inc., 233 F.3d 1014, 1017 (7th Cir.2000) (noting that “unreasonable delay -in providing an accommodation can provide evidence of discrimination”); Pantazes v. Jackson, 366 F.Supp.2d 57, 70 (D.D.C.2005); Leiterman v. Johnson, 60 F.Supp.3d 166, 181 (D.D.C.2014) (declining to grant defendant summary-judgment on ground that plaintiff ultimately got ■ requested accommodation, in light of three-year. delay). Such courts have identified factors to aid in determining whether a delay was reasonable or unreasonable, including “the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, whether the employer has offered any alternative accommodations while evaluating a particular request, and whether the employer has acted in good faith.” Selenke, 248 F.3d at 1262-63. The acceptable timetable thus varies depending on the nature of. the request and the circumstances of each case.

As discussed previously, many of the delays with which Pla