Walker v. District of Columbia (279 F. Supp. 3d 246, 2017)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Plaintiff, Shavon Walker, is a former employee of the District of Columbia Public Schools (“DCPS”), which is an agency of the Defendant, the District of Columbia (the “District” or “Defendant”). Plaintiff, who is African American, filed suit against Defendant, alleging that Defendant; (1) violated the District of Columbia Whistle-blower Protection Act (“DC WPA”); (2) discriminated and retaliated against her on the basis of race, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e ét seq, (“Title VII”); and (3) retaliated against her for engaging in activity protected under the Rehabilitation Act of 1972, 29 U. S.C. § 700 et seq. (“Rehabilitation Act”), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12100 et seq. Presently before the Court is Defendant’s [54] Motion for Summary Judgment.

Upon consideration of the parties’ submissions, the relevant legal authorities, and the record as a whole, the Court finds that Plaintiff has raised a genuine issue of material fact as to her claims under the Whistleblower Protection Act and for retaliation under Title VII, but not for racial discrimination or retaliation under the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act. Accordingly, the Court shall GRANT-IN-PART and DENY-IN-PART Defendant’s [54] Motion for Summary Judgment. Specifically, the Court shall grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment with regard to Plaintiffs racial discrimination claim pursuant to Title VII and her claim for retaliation under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, but shall deny Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment with regard to Plaintiffs claim under the D.C. Whistleblower Protection Act and her claim for retaliation under Title VII.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

As a preliminary matter, this Court notes that in the Background section of Plaintiffs Opposition, Plaintiff notes that “[a]ll facts in this background statement are drawn from the District’s statement of undisputed [facts] if those facts are indeed undisputed, and otherwise from Ms. Walker’s accompanying statement of genuine issues and statement of countervailing facts,” without providing any cites to either party’s statement of material facts Pl.’s Opp’n at 11 n.1. Nor does Plaintiffs argument in her Opposition provide cites to the statement of material facts or to the record evidence in this case. Rather, Plaintiffs Opposition to the Motion contains several narrative discussions by the Plaintiff, which are immaterial to the resolution of issues in this Motion.

Plaintiffs [60-1] Statement of Genuine Issues and Countervailing Facts is fifty-nine pages in length, and her response to the District’s Statement No. 4 consists of numerous references to bates-stamped pages that were produced to the District but only provided in part to the Court as Exhibit D to Plaintiffs Opposition. Plaintiffs first countervailing “fact” (out of 178) is not a fact but a narrative that spans eight and one-half pages and includes numerous facts and citations to bates-stamped documents, many of which have not been produced as exhibits to the Plaintiffs Opposition and are therefore not part of the record available to this Court for purposes of determining Defendant’s Motion. Local Civil R 7(h)(1) permits the non-moving party to submit a statement of facts believed to be genuinely disputed, but those facts must be “concise” and shall include specific “references to the part of the record relied on” to support the statement. See LCvR 7(h)(1) (emphasis added). Plaintiffs lengthy chronology of events, presented as the first Countervailing Fact, does not comply with LCvR 7(h)(1) and is therefore stricken, The parties were warned in this Court’s March 11, 2015 Scheduling and Procedures Order that “[t]he Court strictly adheres to the dictates of Local Rule 7(h),” that statements of fact must be “short and concise” and that “the Court may strike papers not in conformity” with its rules. Scheduling and Procedures Order, ECF No. 11.

Furthermore, as the District of Columbia Circuit has emphasized, “[Local Civil Rule 7(h)(1)] places the burden on the parties and their counsel, who are most familiar with the litigation and the record, to crystallize for the district court the material facts and relevant portions of the record.” Jackson v. Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, 101 F.3d 145, 151 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (citing Twist v. Meese, 854 F.2d 1421, 1425 (D.C. Cir. 1988)). In the instant case, Plaintiffs Statement of Genuine Issues and Countervailing Facts is unhelpful to the Court in setting forth the required background as certain key facts relating to the timing and substance of Defendant’s alleged retaliatory conduct are not contained therein, nor do Plaintiff and Defendant always effectively distinguish between events that took place while Plaintiff was at McKinley Technical High School (“McKinley”) or at Shaw-Garnett Patterson Middle School (“Shaw”), or both, or cite to the correct portions of the record. Accordingly, contrary to its preferred practice, the Court shall in some instances cite directly to the exhibits on which the parties rely in their briefing rather than to their statements of material facts.

Plaintiff, who is African-American, was employed as a Special Education teacher at McKinley beginning in 2005. Defi’s Stmt. ¶ 1. In her capacity as a Special Education teacher, Plaintiff worked with high functioning autistic students. Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 2. At the beginning of the 2011-2012 school year, Plaintiff was transferred to Shaw as a continuing special education teacher. Def. Stmt. ¶ 10. Plaintiff was informed that the autism program at McKinley was changing and that Shaw needed a special education teacher. Def.’s Stmt. ¶¶ 9, 10, 11. At Shaw, Plaintiff was assigned to teach a self-contained class of intellectually disabled students. Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 13. She worked there until her employment was terminated on August 8, 2013. Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 42.

1. Plaintiffs Time at McKinley

During her time at McKinley, Plaintiff made complaints about the school’s alleged failure to provide special education students with required services, or accommodations that fulfilled their individualized education programs. Def.’s Reply ¶ 4. More specifically, Plaintiff raised complaints regarding: inappropriate class sizes and groupings of students; not being able to obtain resources, including textbooks and classroom materials, and the support needed to teach effectively; and inadequate working conditions, including operating out of a classroom in the girl’s locker room adjacent to the school’s theater. Def.’s Reply ¶¶ 4, 5. Plaintiff claimed that she was denied certain assistive technology devices, a white board and textbooks that she needed for her students. Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 23. Plaintiff admitted however that she did not know what [resources and support] other [teachers] requested or received at other schools. Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 53. In fact, when asked whether the services were being provided at other schools, Plaintiff testified that “[she couldn’t] speak to that because [she] wasn’t at those schools.” Def.’s Stmt ¶ 52. Nor could Plaintiff speak to whether or not the purported lack of resources was due to budgetary constraints at the school. Def.’s Reply ¶ 30; see Def.’s Mot., Ex. 4 (Pl.’s April 4, 2016 Dep.) at 53:2-12.

Plaintiff also complained about not being able to participate in certain training programs. Def.’s Reply ¶ 6. Plaintiff testified that she believed there was a racial element to the decision regarding who would receive training. See Pl.’s Mot., Ex. A (Pl.’s Dec. 22, 2015 Dep. at 126:1-126:8, 131:1-132:10, 133:5-134:5, 134:21-136:5, 136:20-137:7.) Plaintiff did not however know whether only one teacher received the training that she was allegedly denied, and she did not know whether other black teachers were trained. See Def's Mot,, Exhibit 1 (Pl.’s Dec. 22, 2015 Dep.) at 121:12-123:14. According to Plaintiff, “the only reason why [she knew the [white] teacher received the training] [was] because [she] had regular conversations with her.” See Ex. A, Pl.’s Dep. at 125:11-20. Plaintiffs allegations that the denial of training was racially motivated is unsupported by Plaintiffs own statements, which are inconclusive as to who received training.

Similarly, Plaintiff noted “different patterns of treatment” with regard to teachers in the autism cluster program when the teachers attended meetings, but she was unable to identify the schools or teachers. Def.’s Stmt. '¶ 19. Nor did Plaintiff know the Individualized Education Program (“IEPs”) of the students of the Caucasian'' teachers, and admittedly, all she knew was from what she saw at the meetings that took place and conversations she had- with unidentified minority teachers. Def.’s Stmt. ¶¶20, 21. On November 17, 2010, at a meeting with Colleen Koval, the citywide head of DCPS’s autism program, Ms. Koval threatened to have Plaintiff “written -up,” Ex. l’s Dep. at 60:4-60:22 (where Plaintiff states that Ms. Koval threatened to write her up for a “task [that] wasn’t completed in an electronic database”); Def.’s Mot., Ex, 2 (May 16, 2014 Amended Charge of Discrimination) at 1. On- November 23, 2010, Plaintiff received a written reprimand by McKinley’s Principal, David Pinder. Def.’s Reply ¶3; Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 33; Ex. T at 60:4-9. When asked whether the reprimand was the result of her raising concerns about lack of resources, Plaintiff testified that “I don’t know why [Ms. Koval] — I can’t speak to why it was influenced, I just know that it happened.” Ex. 1 at 62:3-15. Plaintiff does not assert that this reprimand had any effect on her employment or otherwise.

‘In September 2011, Plaintiff was transferred to Shaw. Def.’s Stmt. If 10. According to Mr. Pinder, Ms.' Koval recommended that Ms. Walker’s transfer from McKinley to Shaw because Shaw needed Ms. Walker’s skill with- autistic students. PL’s Stmt, ¶ 19. Plaintiff admits that “she was told that théy needed additional support at Shaw Middle School, [t]hey needed to reallocate funds at the time, they didn’t have a special education teacher who could oversee'.. .students with ... an intellectual disability at Shaw Middle School and so they 'needed someone to cover the classroom.” Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 11.

2. Plaintiffs Time at Shaw

At Shaw, Plaintiff was assigned to teach intellectually disabled students as opposed to working with students in the autism program. Defl’s Stmt. ¶ 13. Plaintiffs transfer to Shaw did not affect her teacher licensing. Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 55. Plaintiff ended up also taking extra students from another class and these students presented different disabilities from her intellectually disabled students. Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 12; PL’s Stmt. ¶ 27. Plaintiff concludes that she was given additional work in relation to a non-minority teacher.

After her transfer to Shaw, Plaintiff continued to make complaints about the lack of resources available to implement the requirements of her students’ IEPs. Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 14. Plaintiff indicated that “[d]ur-ing the 2011-12 and 2012-13 school years at Shaw Middle School, resources, teaching caseloads and training opportunities were allocated unequally between white and minority teachers.” See Def.’s Mot., Ex. 5 (Pl.’s Answers and Objections to Interrogatories), Answer to Interrogatory 4. Plaintiff contends further that she made a protected disclosure by joining in a grievance with several other Shaw teachers concerning school safety and proper discipline. Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 17.

At a February 15, 2012 IEP review meeting, Plaintiff informed a student’s parent and attorney that the student was not receiving appropriate IEP services. PL’s Stmt. ¶ 3. On March 12, 2012, .the Shaw Assistant Principal told Plaintiff that teachers could “not share any new IEP information with the [student’s] attorney prior to the meeting.” PL’s Stmt. ¶ 4; PL’s Opp’n, Ex. K (Mar. 12, 2012 e-mail from Shaw Assistant Principal DeMatthews to Plaintiff). In a May 27, 2012 e-mail to Mr. DeMatthews, Plaintiff asserted that “information about [her] classroom and [her] students’ progress as it pertains to , [her] classroom should be topics [she] can freely discuss.” See PL’s Opp’n, Ex. L (5/27/2012 e-mail from Shavon Walker to David De-Matthews). Plaintiff testified that [sometime] after the IEP meeting, she noticed that her “evaluations [went] down significantly,” and she was subject to “constant micromanaging” and put on a “leave restriction,” and she was told to “follow a certain protocol if [she] wanted -to take leave.” See Pl.’s Opp’n,, Ex. B (Pl.’s Apr. 4, 2016 Dep.) at 65:14-68:1.

On June 13, 2012, Plaintiff received a poor performance review, which she alleged was inconsistent with two other evaluations provided to her by the Special Education''Master Educators at the Central District Office. Def.’s Stmt.1 ¶ 32; PL’s Stmt. ¶ 7; Ex. A at 107:1-108:4. Plaintiffs low evaluation placed a “step hold” on her pay. Pl.’_s Stmt. ¶ 9.

' During the 2012-2013 school year, Plaintiff filed five complaints with the Labor Management and Employee Relations Division (“LMER”) of DCPS, dated: October 11, 2012; December 7, 2012; February 15, 2013; April 10, 2013; and May 20, 2013. PL’s 'Stmt. ¶ 21. During that school year, Plaintiff was alleged to have' fraudulently completed an IEP for a student and submitted it as a finalized documents in Easy-IEP, the IEP management system. Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 35. An investigation was initiated into the complaint about Plaintiffs alleged fraudulent activity. Def.’s Stmt. ¶37. Because Shaw was closing at the end of the 2012-2013 school year, all staff had to secure new employment elsewhere. Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 38. Plaintiff secured an offer of employment from Ludlow-Taylor Elementary School for the 2013-2014 school .year. Def.’s Stmt.- ¶ 39; see Ex. 5,. Answer to Interrogatory No. .10; PL’s Opp’n, Ex. H (Details of Plaintiffs July 4, 2013 offer, of employment from Ludlow-Taylor Elementary School). After the investigation was completed, a review board decided to terminate Plaintiffs employment with DCPS, effective August 8, 2013, before she commenced : employment at Ludlow-Taylor Elementary School. Defi’s Stmt, ¶¶ 41, 42.

B. Procedural History

On or about June 19, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination (“Charge”) with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). Defi’s Stmt. 1Í 44; Def.’s Mot., Ex. 8 (June 19, 2012 Charge of Discrimination). In that Charge, Plaintiff identified the following grievances from November 17, 2010 through June 13, 2012:

a. On September 2, 2011, Plaintiff was involuntarily transferred to Shaw Middle School as a Special Education Teacher — Autism.

b. On November 17, 2010, Colleen Koval, the Special Education Autism Program Manager (PM) for DC Public Schools (White), told her in a staff meeting, in front of her peers, that she was going to be written up.

c. On November 23, 2010, Plaintiff received a written reprimand.

d. In August 2011, she was denied her request for school resources she needed.

e. On April 10, 2012, she was placed on an unwarranted leave restriction.

f. On April 25, 2012, she was given a letter of reprimand.

g. On or about June 13, 2012, she was given a poor performance review which was inconsistent with two other evaluations provided by the Special Education Masters Educators at the Central District Office. Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 45.

On or about May 16, 2014, Plaintiff amended her EEOC Charge of Discrimination. Def.’s ¶ 46; Ex. 2. In that Amended Charge, Plaintiff identified the following additional acts of alleged racial discrimination from October 2012 through December 2012:

a.[Unequitable distribution of workloads, resources, and access to professional development opportunities among the races. Plaintiff also identified additional acts of racial discrimination as follows:

b. During the period February 2013 through August 2013, she participated in an unexpected investigation regarding a[n] [alleged] fraudulent IEP, and that the documentation regarding the investigation became part of her personnel file.

c. She received a low performance evaluation score because of the lack of direction provided to her on future tasks. Plaintiff identified additional acts of retaliation as follows:

d. In April 2013, she was suspended with no pay re: “negligence and dereliction of duties.”

e. In April & May 2013, she was not paid for all medical leave taken despite providing medical notes.

f. In July 2013, she received a letter stating that her overall performance evaluation for the entire school year is not within an acceptable range to receive a pay increase.

g. In January 2014, her administrative appeal to the Chancellor regarding her performance evaluation scores was denied.

h. In March 2013, she was suspended for three days.

i. The IMPACT process was violated when her performance was not properly rated.

j. On August 8, 2013, she was notified that her employment was terminated. Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 47; PL’s Resp. ¶ 47.

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia on December 15, 2014. ECF No. 1-1. On January 14, 2015, this case was removed to this Court from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Plaintiffs Complaint alleges one count in violation of the DC WPA, one count of racial discrimination and retaliation, in violation of Title VII, and one count of retaliation for engaging in protected activity under the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA, See Amended Compl, ECF No. 1-1.

While discovery was pending in this case, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel against the District on November 6, 2016, wherein she identified all the discovery produced by the District' on which she requested court intervention. See PL’s Mot. to Compel, ECF No. 24 (requesting information regarding training opportunities and support and benefits available to Plaintiff and to comparable DCPS employees in Interrogatories Nos. 5-7). The motion to compel was referred to Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey, who set a December 9, 2015 status hearing on the motion. On December 10, 2015, Magistrate Judge Harvey directed the parties to file a “joint notice with the Court, ... articulating what, if any, issues raised in plaintiffs Motion to Compel [Dkt. 24] remain following the defendants’ submission of amended responses to plaintiffs documents requests and its recent production to plaintiff of additional materials after entry of the protective order.” See December 10, 2015 Minute Order.

On January 27, 2016, the parties filed a Joint Report regarding the status of the motion to compel, which indicated that Interrogatory No. 7 had been resolved but Interrogatories No. 5 and No. 6 were still unresolved or only partially resolved. The District claimed that it had “fully answered the interrogatories [5 and 6] as revised by Ms. Walker” and asserted that while Plaintiff alleged that answers were deficient, she had not demonstrated any deficiency. See Joint Report to the Court regarding the Status of the Motion to Compel, ECF No. 37, at 6. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Harvey set a February 16, 2016 hearing on the remaining issues identified in the parties’ Joint Report.

In a Minute Order following the February 16, 2016 hearing, Magistrate Judge Harvey stated that “[b]y agreement of the parties reached at the hearing, defendant [was to] provide amended responses to a revised version of plaintiffs interrogatories 5 and 6 on or before February 23, 2016, which, if defendant complies, plaintiff agrees will resolve her motion with respect to those two interrogatories as well.” February 16, 2016 Minute Order. Magistrate Judge Harvey further noted that once defendant had provided amended responses to interrogatories 4, 5, and 6, and document request 31, “plaintiff agrees that all issues raised in her motion to compel will be resolved with the exception of her request that defendant pay plaintiffs legal fees and expenses incurred in bringing the motion.” Id. Plaintiff did not raise any issues about any contested discovery thereafter, even at the time she filed her motion for fees, which was granted in part in a [46, 47] Memorandum Opinion and Order.

On July 1, 2016, this Court issued an Order finding that the parties had resolved all discovery-related issues, including those concerning “Defendant’s answers to Plaintiffs interrogatories,” and Plaintiff made no objection to that Order. See July 1,2016 Order, ECF No. 46. Nor did Plaintiff indicate there was any outstanding contested discovery when the parties appeared before the Court, on September 8, 2016, to set a briefing schedule for dispositive motions. See September 8, 2016 Minute Order.

After the close of. discovery, Defendant filed its Motion for Summary Judgment, which is now fully briefed and ripe for resolution. See Def.’s Mot.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate where “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). The mere existence of some factual dispute is insufficient on its own to bar summary judgment; the dispute must pertain to a “material” fact. Id, Accordingly, “[o]nly disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law 'will próperly preclude the entry of summary judgment.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Nor may summary judgment be avoided based on just any disagreement as to the relevant facts; the dispute must be “genuine,” meaning that there must be sufficient admissible evidence for a reasonable trier of fact to find for the non-movant. Id.

In order to establish that a fact is or cannot be genuinely disputed, a party must (a) cite to specific parts of the record— including deposition testimony, documentary evidence, affidavits or declarations, or other competent evidence — in support of its position, or (b) demonstrate that the materials relied upon by the opposing party do not actually establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1). Conclusory assertions offered without any factual basis in the record cannot create a genuine dispute sufficient to survive summary judgment. See Ass’n of Flight Attendants-CWA, AFL-CIO v. Dep’t of Transp., 564 F.3d 462, 465-66 (D.C. Cir. 2009). Moreover, where “a party fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another party’s assertion of fact,” the district court may “consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).1

When faced with a motion for summary judgment, the district court may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence; instead, the evidence must be analyzed in the light most favorable to the non-movant, with all justifiable inferences drawn in her favor. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505. If material facts are genuinely in dispute, or undisputed facts are susceptible to divergent yet justifiable inferences, summary judgment is inappropriate. Moore v. Hartman, 571 F.3d 62, 66 (D.C. Cir. 2009). In the end, the district court’s task is to determine “whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to' a jury or whether it is so one-sided' that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. at 251-52, 106 S.Ct. 2505. In this regard,- the non-movant must “do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts,” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co,, Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986); “[i]f the evidence is merely colorable, or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.” Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. at 249-50, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (internal citations omitted).

In recognition of the difficulty in uncovering clear evidence of discriminatory or retaliatory intent, the district court should approach summary judgment in an action for employment discrimination or retaliation with “special caution.” Aka v. Wash. Hosp. Ctr., 116 F.3d 876, 879-80 (D.C. Cir. 1997), vacated on other grounds, 156 F.3d 1284 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (en banc). Be that as it may, the plaintiff is not relieved of her burden to support her allegations with competent evidence. Brown v. Mills, 674 F.Supp.2d 182, 188 (D.D.C. 2009). As in any context, where the plaintiff would bear the burden of proof on a dispositive issue at trial, then at the summary judgment stage she bears the burden of production to designate specific facts showing that there exists a genuine dispute requiring trial. Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557, 129 S.Ct 2658, 174 L.Ed.2d 490 (2009). Otherwise, the plaintiff could effectively defeat the “central purpose” of the summary judgment device — namely, “to weed out those cases insufficiently meritorious to warrant ... trial” — simply by way of offering condusory allegations, speculation, and argument. Greene v. Dalton, 164 F.3d 671, 675 (D.C. Cir. 1999).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiffs Claims of Racial Discrimination Pursuant to Title VII

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act makes it unlawful for any employer to “fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(l). Where there is no direct evidence of discrimination, Title VII claims are assessed pursuant to the burden-shifting framework set forth by the Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-03, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). Plaintiff has the initial burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence a pri-ma facie case of discrimination. To allege a prima fade case of discrimination, a plaintiff must show that she “is a member of a protected class,” that she “suffered an adverse employment action,” and that “the unfavorable action gives rise to an inference of discrimination.” Youssef v. F.B.I., 687 F.3d 397, 401 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (quoting Stella v. Mineta, 284 F.3d 135, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2002)).

Once the plaintiff has made a prima facie case, “the burden shifts to the defendant ‘to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the [employment action that is challenged].’ ” Wiley v. Glassman, 511 F.3d 151, 155 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (quoting McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817). Once an employer has proffered a nondiscriminatory reason, the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework disappears, and the court is left to- -determine whether the plaintiff has put forth enough evidence to defeat the defendant’s proffer and support a finding of discrimination. Brady v. Office of the Sergeant at Arms, 520 F.3d 490, 494 (D.C. Cir. 2008); Woodruff v. Peters, 482 F.3d 521, 530 (D.C. Cir. 2007).

At the summary judgment stage, courts may consider plaintiff’s prima facie case, evidence presented by the plaintiff to rebut the employer’s explanations for actions taken, and any additional evidence of discrimination that the plaintiff might proffer. See Hampton v. Vilsack, 685 F.3d 1096, 1100 (D.C. Cir. 2012); see Hamilton v. Geithner, 666 F.3d 1344, 1351 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (noting that, to avoid summary judgment, a plaintiff need not submit evidence “over and above” that necessary to rebut the employer’s stated reason) (quotation omitted). A plaintiffs disagreement with or disbelief in employer’s explanation cannot alone “satisfy the burden of showing that a reasonable jury could find that the employer’s 'asserted reason was hot the actual reason and that the employer intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff on a prohibited basis.” Burton v. District of Columbia, 153 F.Supp.3d 13, 58 (D.D.C. 2015).

In the instant case, there - is no dispute that Plaintiff, who is African American, meets the first requirement of her prima facie case because she is a member of a protected class.

With regard to the second requirement, plaintiff must demonstrate that she suffered an adverse action. See Evans v. Sebelius, 716 F.3d 617, 619 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (noting that an adverse action is a prerequisite for a Title VII claim) (citing Stewart v. Ashcroft, 352 F.3d 422, 426 (D.C. Cir. 2003)); Patterson v. Johnson, 505 F.3d 1296, 1298 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (“Liability for discrimination under Title VII requires an adverse employment action.”) (citing Brown v. Brody, 199 F.3d 446, 452-55 (D.C. Cir. 1999)). For purposes of Title VII discrimination claims, “[a]n ‘adverse employment action’ is ‘a significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing significant change in benefits.’ ” Douglas v. Donovan, 559 F.3d 549, 552 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (quoting Taylor v. Small, 350 F.3d 1286, 1293 (D.C. Cir. 2003)). “An employee must ’experience! ] materially adverse consequences affecting the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment or future .employment opportunities such that a reasonable trier of fact could find objectively' tangible harm.” Id. (quoting Forkkio v. Powell, 306 F.3d 1127, 1131 (D.C. Cir. 2002)). The D.C. Circuit has cautioned that “not everything that makes an employee unhappy is an actionable adverse action.” Russell v. Principi, 257 F.3d 815, 818 (D.C. Cir. 2001). Indeed, in this respect, “courts are not ‘super-personnel departments] that reexamine! ] an entity’s business decision^].’ ” Stewart, 352 F.3d at 429 (quoting Dale v. Chicago Tribune Co., 797 F.2d 458, 464 (7th Cir. 1986)).

1. Sorting out Plaintiffs Claims of Discrimination

Plaintiffs Amended Charge of Discrimination highlights two acts of discrimination — one relating to inequitable distribution of workloads, resources, and access to professional development opportunities and the other relating to the investigation into a “fraudulent IEP.” See Ex. 2; Plaintiffs Amended Complaint addresses discrimination on the basis of race in Count Two but does little to enlighten this Court as it incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1-25, and only Paragraph 14 specifically addresses an alleged racial disparity regarding denial of supports and benefits, including training, materials, workspaces and division of responsibilities. See generally Amended Compl. In her Opposition, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant discriminated against her on the basis of race in “two respects,” first, by withholding of resources and supports, and second by assigning Plaintiff “a disproportionately difficult case load at Shaw relative to the white special education teacher.” Pl.’s Opp’n at 50. Plaintiff does not assert that there was racial discrimination regarding the investigation into the alleged fraudulent IEP, and accordingly, that issue has been conceded by Plaintiff. “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.” Hopkins v Women’s Div. Gen. Bd. of Global Ministries, 284 F.Supp.2d 15, 25 (D.D.C. 2003) (citing FDIC v. Bender, 127 F.3d 58, 67-68 (D.C. Cir. 1997)); Stephens v. Cox, 223 F.Supp.2d 119, 121 (D.D.C. 2002), aff'd, 98 Fed.Appx. 8 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Accordingly, the Court will review Plaintiffs claim for discrimination as set forth in her Opposition.

Plaintiff claims that “Ms..Koval forced out minority autism program teachers, including by making their work lives difficult by withholding necessary resources and supports.” Pl.’s Opp’n at 50. Plaintiff contends that she has “propounded discovery designed [to] elicit information that would show that minority and non-minority teachers within the autism program were supported in disparate fashion during Ms. Koval’s tenure [but] [t]o date, despite promises to provide the requested information, the District has never produced it.” Pl.’s Opp’n at 12. Plaintiff suggests that this alleged non-production of discovery makes it “premature” for the Court to “even consider [this] question.” Pl.’s Opp’n at'50. The Court notes that the deadline for completion of discovery in this case was April 18, 2016. See March 18, 2016 Order, ECF No. 44.

In light of the record in this' case, the Court finds that Plaintiff has waived any argument related to the insufficiency of the District’s discovery responses because she repeatedly failed to raise this issue when she was before this Court, instead waiting to raise it in her opposition to the pending Motion. Furthermore, while Plaintiff references Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) and (e) in her Opposition, the Court notes that she provides no affidavit as required by Rule 56(d), and thus, any request under Rule 56(d) should be denied. See Convertino v. U.S. Dept. of Justice, 684 F.3d 93, 99-100 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (explaining that a Rule 56(d) affidavit must outline the particular facts the movant intends to discover and describe why such facts are necessary, explain why the facts could not be produced in opposition to summary judgment, and show that the information is discoverable). Accordingly, the Court rejects Plaintiffs suggestion that it is premature to consider Plaintiffs claim of racial discrimination based on the factual predicate, set forth above.

Plaintiff claims that she “was assigned a disproportionately difficult caseload at Shaw relative to the white special education teacher,” and this constitutes disparate treatment. PL’s Opp’n, at 50. Plaintiff asserts that she was “expected to teach several students, not intellectually disabled, who were transferred into her class for reading instruction from the class of the Caucasian special education teacher” and she “asked for training to help her teach her students, but only the white special education teacher received training, leading her to believe that there was a racial element to the training and caseload distribution decisions.” PL’s Opp’n at 14-15. The Court now turns to whether Plaintiff has met the second requirement for establishing a prima facie case for race based discrimination.

á. Does Plaintiff Establish an Adverse Employment Action?

It is well-established that an adverse employment action must involve “a significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing a significant change in benefits.” Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 761, 118 S.Ct. 2257, 141 L.Ed.2d 633 (1998). The Supreme Court in Burlington Northern provided an objective standard for what constitutes an “adverse employment action,” first explaining that such action must be material, not trivial and second, adopting a flexible standard because retaliation often depends upon the context, i.e., the particular circumstances. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 68, 126 S.Ct. 2405, 165 L.Ed.2d 345 (2006). See also Niskey v. Kelly, 859 F.3d 1, 8 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (“Prohibited discrimination ... ife not rigidly confined to ‘hirings, firings promotions, or other discrete incidents.’ ”) (quoting Holcomb v. Powell, 433 F.3d 889, 902 (D.C. Cir. 2006)), What is necessary to establish an adverse action is that the employee “experience materially adverse consequences affecting the terms, conditions, pr privileges of employment or future employment opportunities such that a reasonable trier of fact could find objectively tangible harm.” Douglas, 559 F.3d at 552 (internal quotations omitted) (emphasis added).

In the instant case, Plaintiffs claim of denial of training opportunities does not constitute an adverse employment action with regard to her claim for racial discrimination. Plaintiff provides no details .about the- type of training she was presumably denied or whether the lack of any. such training would have materially affected her employment. When alleging discrimination, denial of a training opportunity can constitute-an adverse employment action, “but only if the denial materially affects the plaintiffs pay, hours, job title,.responsibilities, promotional opportunities, and the like.” Santa Cruz v. Snow, 402 F.Supp.2d 113, 127 (D.D.C. 2005); see also Edwards v. EPA, 456 F.Supp.2d 72, 86 (D.D.C. 2006) (“[T]o be adverse, the denial of a travel or training opportunity must have a discernible, as opposed to a speculative, effect on the terms, conditions, or privileges of one’s employment.”) Plaintiff proffers no evidence in support of her claim that denial of training had any discernible effect on the terms or conditions of her employment. Therefore, there are no facts to support an adverse action for purposes of proving her prima facie case.

Similarly, Plaintiffs claim that she was not allocated certain resources does not rise to the level of an adverse employment action, as “such common workplace shortfalls, without more, are not the kinds of problems that Title VII was intended to remedy.” Casey v. Mabus, 878 F.Supp.2d 175, 185 (D.D.C. 2012); see Allen v. Napolitano, 774 F.Supp.2d 186, 203 (D.D.C. 2011) (finding that a denial of additional resources and support does hot qualify as a material adverse action where plaintiff “could have benefitted” from them). A lack of resources and increased workloads are “familiar complaints in virtually every workplace and every industry, but they do not give rise to a discrimination claim under Title VII.” Rattigan v. Gonzales, 503 F.Supp.2d 56, 73 (D.D.C. 2007); see also Clegg v. Ark, Dept. of Corr., 496 F.3d 922, 929 (8th Cir. 2007) (finding that a. denial of access to needed employment tools and denial of training did not meet the standard for establishing an adverse employment action).

Nor does Plaintiffs claim that her workload was disproportionate to that of the Caucasian teacher rise to the level of an adverse employment action for purposes of pursuing a racial discrimination claim under, Title VII, as she has set out no facts to support that the distribution of work was racially motivated. “Changes in assignments or work-related duties do not ordinarily constitute adverse employment decisions if unaccompanied by a decrease in salary or work hour changes.” Mungin v Katten Muchin & Zavis, 116 F.3d 1549, 1556-57 (D.C. Cir. 1997); see also Bowden v. Clough, 658 F.Supp.2d 61, 82 (D.D.C. 2009) (finding that plaintiff did not state a claim for discrimination based on being “given extra tasks” in relation to his female counterparts in part because “the tasks among all [co-workers] vary according to their skill and experience”); Rattigan, 503 F.Supp.2d at 73.

In this particular case,-any assignment of extra work fails to rise to level of a materially adverse employment action because such action constitutes a “petty slight[ ] or minor annoyance! ] that' often take[s] place at work and that all employees experience.” AuBuchon v. Geithner, 743 F.3d 638, 645 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Burlington N., 548 U.S. at 68, 126 S.Ct. 2405). Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the existence of any materially adverse employment action in support of her claim for racial discrimination, and thus, she has not made a prima facie case.

b. Discriminatory Intent

Even assuming arguendo that Plaintiffs disproportionate workload and lack of training could be construed as adverse actions, Plaintiff would still need to démon-strate that this was motivated by a discriminatory intent. In her Opposition, Plaintiff points to nothing in the record before this Court to support an allegation of discriminatory intent. In her deposition, Plaintiff testified that, while at Shaw, she was “asked to absorb the caseload” of a non-minority teacher for reading instruction. PL’s Countervailing Fact ¶ 26; Ex. A at 115:18-117:8. The students sent to Plaintiffs classroom came from an inclusion class, while her students were self-contained, and they presented different disabilities from her intellectually disabled students. PL’s Countervailing Fact ¶ 27; Ex. A at 117:1-14. Plaintiff testified that she “had to get very creative with how [she] was going to structure [her] program in order to provide effective instruction.” Ex. A at 120:17-121:11. Plaintiff testified that she had five of her own students, who had intellectual disabilities, and this number increased to approximately eleven students when the additional students came in for reading instruction. Ex. A at 117:20-117:22; 119:3-18. Plaintiff 'testified that she was “helping out this .,. Caucasian teacher with her caseload,” although that teacher could have taught because she had time in her schedule. Ex. A at 119:19— 120:5. Plaintiff knew that the kids had “very challenging behavior” and “since [she] typically tend[s] to be good- with classroom management, [she] kn[e]w that’s why they actually asked [her] to help because [the other teacher] wasn’t effective in that'area” and it was “no big deal, fine, send them- on over, they will: be with her for the rest of the time.” Ex. A at 120:6-120:12. Plaintiff opined that the different levels impeded her ability tó teach effectively. Pi’s Countervailing Fact ¶ 28;' Def.’s Resp. ¶ 28; Ex. A at 120:17-121:11.

Plaintiff , asserted therefore that she asked to be trained to help her students but only the white teacher received training, which led her to conclude that there was a racial element to the decision. PL’s Countervailing Fact ¶ 29; Def.’s Resp. ¶29. Plaintiffs statement is unsupported by her deposition testimony that she did not know whether the teacher referenced was the only teacher who received training or whether other black teacher's were trained. See Ex. 1 at 122:1-123:19; see also Ex. A at 125:11-20 (where Plaintiff testified that the only reason she knew that the Ms. Baker. [Caucasian] had received training was because she had conversations with her). Plaintiff relies on her own opinions and fails to cite to any competent evidence to support her claim that any denial of training’or additional work that she was given was motivated by any discriminatory intent or is in any way linked to her race. ‘

Similarly, assuming that Plaintiffs deni,al of resources could be construed as an adverse action, in her Opposition, Plaintiff points to nothing that supports her claim that minority autism-teachers were denied resources and supports that' were provided to non-minority autism teachers. Plaintiff testified that the basis of her race complaint is. that she “saw the patterns of treatment with different teachers throughout the autism cluster program when we attended the meetings”.but she could not identify any of the schools or teachers. Ex. 1 at 32:2-9; Def.’s Stmt ¶ 19. Plaintiff further testified that all she knew was what she saw from the meetings, and her conversations with minority teachers but provided only a conclusory assertion with no details. Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 21; Ex. 1 at 43:8— '20. Plaintiff conceded that she did not know about the IEPs of the white teachers so she could not speak to whether their resources matched their IEP needs. Ex. 1 at 43:8-20; Def.’s Stmt. ¶20. Conclusory statements made by a Plaintiff that are unsubstantiated by facts in the record “come within an exception to [the] rule” that “statements made by the party opposing a motion for summary judgment must be accepted as true for the purpose of ruling on that motion.” Greene v. Dalton, 164 F.3d 671, 675 (D.C. Cir. 1999) “Absent supporting facts — and [Plaintiff] provided none — a jury would be in no position to assess her claim .... Accepting such con-clusory allegations as true, therefore, would defeat the central purpose of .the summary judgment device, which is to weed out those cases insufficiently meritorious to warrant the expense of a jury trial.” Id.

Plaintiff testified that before Ms, Koval came to McKinley in 2010, Plaintiff would request resources through Ms. Vicki who was able to get her resources “as much as possible but once she left that’s when resources were not provided in either direction, school or the autism cluster program.” Ex. 1 at 29:19-30:14. Plaintiff did not ask Ms. Vicki for everything but relied on some things to be fulfilled by the principal. Ex.l at 31:20-32:1. Plaintiff was “under the impression that [her] school was supposed to also include [her] on the budget.” Ex. 1 at 31:4-19. Plaintiff did not know how money was divided up in the school budget nor did she know how her program was funded. Ex. 4 at 53:2-126; Ex. 1 at 29:16-18. Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that a trier of fact could infer that any denial of resources was motivated by any discriminatory intent or is in any way linked to her race. Accordingly, because Plaintiff has not demonstrated any discriminatory intent with regard to her claim of racial discrimination, summary judgment should .be granted in favor of Defendant on this claim.

B. Plaintiffs Retaliation Claims

Plaintiff makes claims for retaliation pursuant to Title VII, the ADA, and the Rehabilitation Act. More specifically, Plaintiff claims that she was subject to retaliation under Title VII for protesting against the alleged disparate and adverse treatment she was accorded because of her race, and for advocating on behalf of persons with disabilities, which is a legally protected activity under the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA. The Court notes that Plaintiffs briefing on her retaliation claims in her Opposition is deficient insofar as it incorporates by reference her argument regarding her Whistleblower claims, thereby leaving the Court to try to divine and piece together Plaintiffs protected activities with any materially adverse actions she relies upon in order to' prove her pri-ma facie case.

1. Retaliation under Title VII

Title VII contains an anti-retaliation provision that makes it unlawful for an employer to “discriminate against any of his employees or applicants for employment. .. because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter or because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter. 42 U.S.C. § 20003-3(a). To prevail on a claim of unlawful retaliation under Title VII, “the plaintiff must allege that she engaged in activity protected by Title VII, the employer took adverse action against her, and the employer took that action because of the employee’s protected conduct.” Walker v. Johnson, 798 F.3d 1085, 1091-92 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (citing Hamilton, 666 F.3d at 1357).

Similar to discrimination claims under Title VII, where allegations of retaliation are not based on direct evidence, as here, the Court must follow the aforementioned McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, with plaintiff first carrying the burden of demonstrating her prima facie case. “To establish a prima facie case of retaliation based on circumstantial evidence, a plaintiff must show that (1) she engaged in statutorily protected activity; (2) she suffered a materially adverse action by her employer; and (3) a causal link connects the two.” Doak v. Johnson, 798 F.3d 1096, 1107 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Solomon v. Vilsack, 763 F.3d 1, 14 (D.C. Cir. 2014)). If, after the plaintiff proves her prima facie case, the defendant proffers a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its challenged action, summary judgment in favor of defendant is appropriate if the employee fails to rebut defendant’s reason. See Hernandez v. Pritzker, 741 F.3d 129, 133 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (noting that “the ‘central question’ in [the] case is whether [the plaintiff] has produced sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find those reasons were but pretexts for retaliation.”) (quoting McGrath v. Clinton, 666 F.3d 1377, 1383 (D.C. Cir. 2012))).

a. Protected Activities

Plaintiff asserts that she filed five EEO complaints with LMER during the 2012-2013 school year, in which she alleged, inter alia, racial and differential treatment discrimination. PL’s Countervailing Fact ¶ 21; Ex. N, Deposition of Erin Kimberly Pitts, Depo. Ex. DC 12. “It is well-settled that Title VII protects informal, as well as formal, complaints of discrimination.” Richardson v. Gutierrez, 477 F.Supp.2d 22, 27 (D.D.C. 2007); see generally Woodruff, 482 F.3d 521 (filing an EEOC complaint is a protected activity). Defendant concedes that Plaintiffs EEO grievances are protected activities. See Def.’s Mot. at 13 n.1 (“[N]or does [the District] argue that Plaintiffs grievances are not protected activities.”). Accordingly, for purposes of a claim for retaliation under Title VII, Plaintiff has satisfied the requirement of engaging in a protected activity.

b. Adverse Actions

Adverse actions within the context of a retaliation claim encompass a “broader sweep of actions” than in the context of a discrimination claim. Baloch v. Kempthorne, 550 F.3d 1191, 1198 n.4 (D.C. Cir. 2008); see also Pardo-Kronemann v. Donovan, 601 F.3d 599, 615 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (“The question of the ‘adversity’ required for an ‘action’ to be retaliatory naturally depends on objective differences between the conditions before and after the [challenged action].”).'With regard to retaliation claims, actionable adverse actions are “not limited to discriminatory actions that affect the terms and conditions of employment” but instead may extend to harms that are not workplace-related or employment-related so .long as “a reasonable employee would have found the challenged action materially adverse.” Burlington N., 548 U.S. at 64, 68, 126 S.Ct. 2405. “In the retaliation context, instead of requiring a significant change in employment status to constitute adversity, an action is adverse if it would have ‘dissuaded a reasonable worker from máking or supporting a charge of discrimination.’ ” Crowley v. Vilsack, 236 F.Supp.3d 326 (D.D.C. 2017) (quoting Burlington N., 548 U.S. at 68, 126 S.Ct. 2405).

Review of the Possible Adverse Actions in this Case

As previously noted, Plaintiff has not set forth the adverse action(s) that allegedly support her retaliation claims, thus, leaving it to this Court to flesh out which materially adverse action could have resulted from her claimed protected activity,, in terms of the timing of both. The Court begins it analysis of materially adverse actions that might apply with regard to Plaintiffs retaliation claims by examining the adverse actions that are conceded and contested by the Defendant, First, the District concedes that Plaintiffs termination was an adverse action and that a suspension, from work without pay is an adverse action. Def.’s Mot. at 13 n.l. The District argues that .the following actions are not adversé -actions: (1) Plaintiffs transfer from. McKinley to Shaw in September 2011; (2) reprimands, including the November 17, 2010 threat of a write-up by Ms. Koval and the November 23, 2010 reprimand by Mr. Pinder, as well as the April 10, 2012- leave restriction and the April 25, 2012 reprimand; (3) the claim that during the period October 2012 through December 2012, Plaintiff experienced ^equitable distribution of workloads, resources, and access'to professional development opportunities among the races”; (4) receipt of low performance evaluation scores; and (5) being subject to an investigation regarding a fraudulent IEP. Upon a review of the record .in this case and the applicable case law,- the Court makes the following findings about each of these alleged “adverse actions.”

Plaintiffs Transfer from McKinley to Shaw

Plaintiff was hired in 2005 as a special education teacher. Def.’s Stmt ¶ 1. When she was transferred to Shaw, she continued as a special education teacher, albeit in a different school with children with different special education needs. Def's Stmt. ¶¶ 2,10,13. “Whether a particular reassignment is materially adverse depends upon the circumstances of the particular case, and should be judged from the perspective of a reasonable person ,in the plaintiffs position, considering all the circumstances.” Burlington N., 548 U.S. at 71, 126 S.Ct. 2405 (citing Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Serv., Inc., 523 U.S. 75, 81, 118 S.Ct. 998, 140 L.Ed.2d 201 (1998)). Here, Plaintiffs transfer from McKinley to Shaw entailed a change from being a special education teacher who taught autistic children to being a special education teacher who taught intellectually disabled children.

Plaintiff claims that she was “forced to take on heavier work responsibilities” but being asked to handle heavier work responsibilities does not necessarily imply an adverse action. See generally Morales v. Gotbaum, 42 F.Supp.3d 175, 197-200 (D.D.C. 2014). As previously noted, Plaintiff admits that “she was told that they needed additional support at Shaw Middle School, [t]]hey needed to reallocate funds at the time, they didn’t have a special education teacher who could oversee ... students with ... an intellectual disability at, Shaw Middle School and so they needed someone to cover the classroom.” Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 11; 54. Moreover, Plaintiffs previously cited testimony indicates that she felt that because she had good classroom management skills, they asked her to help out another less experienced teacher by taking on extra work. Ex. A at 120:2-120:12.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs, transfer from McKinley to Shaw does not constitute a materially adverse action. “While a transfer can be ‘adverse’ if the new position requires ‘significantly different responsibilities,’ ” here, Plaintiffs position at Shaw required the same or similar responsibilities as her position at McKinley. Hernandez v. Gutierrez, 850 F.Supp.2d 117, 122 (D.D.C. 2012) (citing Holcomb v. Powell, 433 F.3d 889, 902 (D.C. Cir. 2006)) (internal citation omitted).

November 2010 Threat 6f a Write-up, Written Reprimand, and April 2012 Actions

Plaintiffs deposition testimony indicated that she was written up for “a task that wasn’t completed in an electronic database.” Def’s Stmt. ¶ 3; Ex. 1 at 60:10-18; Ex. 2 at 1. Plaintiff does not further elaborate on the November 2010 threatened reprimand and subsequent written reprimand and the Court will not speculate as to the substance of the reprimand. See Baloch, 550 F.3d 1191, 1199 (finding two letters of counseling and an official letter of reprimand insufficient. to demonstrate an adverse action where the letter lacked abusive language and contained only job-related criticism); Stewart v. Evans, 275 F.3d 1126, 1136 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (finding preparation and issuance of formal report, without “without additional disciplinary action such as a change in grade, salary, or other benefits” which did not' “in-any way affect [plaintiffs] job performance ratings or the conditions of her employment” was not an adverse action); Herbert v. Architect of the Capitol, 766 F.Supp.2d 59, 77 (D.D.C. 2011) (written reprimand insuffi--cient for finding of adverse action wheré reprimand did not contain abusive language or affect the employee’s pay,- grade, or working conditions). In this case, there is no evidence that the reprimand contained any abusive language as opposed to job-related criticism, nor that it lead to any tangible consequences, and as süch, it does not rise to the level of a material'adverse action.

Plaintiffs deposition testimony is the only evidence that Plaintiff proffers in support of the effects of her April 10, 2012 leave restriction. See Ex. B at 66:2-68:11 (describing the steps she had to take in connection with a leave request, including providing doctor’s notes and calling someone to report when she would be absent). Plaintiff does not allege that her medical leave requests were denied, and thus, her allegations about defendant’s requests for medical documentation are not adverse actions. “Actionable retaliation claims are limited to those where an employer causes ‘material adversity,’ not ‘trivial harms,”’ and the plaintiff must still suffer some objectively tangible harm. Wiley v. Glassman, 511 F.3d 151, 161 (D.C. Cir. 2007); see generally Aldrich v. Burwell, 197 F.Supp.3d 124, 132-33 (D.D.C. 2016) (finding that close scrutiny or monitoring of an employee’s whereabouts — without more— 'does not rise to the level of a materially adverse retaliatory action). Plaintiff does not contend that this leave restriction caused her any objectively tangible harm. Plaintiff does not address the April 25, 2012 reprimand in her Opposition, and accordingly, the Court finds that neither the April 10, 2012 leave restriction nor the April 25, 2012 letter of reprimand constitutes an adverse action.

Inequitable Distribution of Workload and Resources Based on Race

Plaintiff claimed that during the period of October 2012 to December 2012, she experienced an “inequitable distribution of workload, resources, and access to professional . development opportunities among the races.” Def.’s Stmt, ¶47a. The Court has already analyzed this claim in connection with Plaintiffs allegation of.discrimination and determined that this claim does not rise to the level of an adverse action because Plaintiff failed to proffer evidence in support of this claim, instead relying solely on her own conclusions. See Ginger v. District of Columbia, 527 F.3d 1340 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (affirming summary judgment for the defendant where “[plaintiffs’] allegations of retaliation [were] conclusory, vague, and for the most part unsubstantiated”); Taylor v. Small, 350 F.3d 1286, 1296 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (affirming grant of summary judgment in favor of employer where district court found no adverse employment action because plaintiff failed to provide evidence of her alleged change in workload); Greene v. Dalton, 164 F.3d 671 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (affirming dismissal on summary judgment where “[plaintiffs] claim of retaliation rest[ed] entirely upon a conclusory representation” without proffering supporting facts because “[accepting such conclusory allegations as true ... would defeat the central purpose of the summary judgment device”); Alford v. Defense Intelligence Agency, 908 F.Supp.2d 164, 174 (D.D.C. 2012) (granting summary judgment because “no reasonable jury could conclude from Plaintiffs naked,- con-clusory allegations of retaliatory motive that Defendant’s asserted reasons were in fact pretext for unlawful retaliation”); Gordon v. Beers, 972 F.Supp.2d 28 (D.D.C. 2013) (finding that plaintiff failed to make out prima facie case of retaliation because her unsubstantiated conclusory statements “failed to establish the requisite causal nexus between her protected activity” and Defendant’s allegedly adverse actions).

Performance Evaluations

Plaintiff alleges that her performance was not properly evaluated. Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 47i. Plaintiff also claims that during the period of February 2013 through August 2013, she “received a low performance evaluation score because of the lack of direction provided to her on future tasks.” Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 47c. In this case, the record is completely devoid of any evidence relating to the aforementioned employment evaluations, which are vaguely referenced in Plaintiffs EEOC Charge, and thus, they need not be further addressed by the Court. See also Walker v. Johnson, 798 F.3d 1085, 1093-94 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (finding that employee’s opinion that her job performance deserved a higher rating was insufficient, by itself, to support inference that her supervisor had a racially discriminatory motive in making her performance evaluation).

Suspensions

Defendant does not specifically address the remaining alleged adverse actions set forth by Plaintiff. The Court notes that two additional alleged adverse actions are mentioned by Plaintiff in her Statement of Countervailing Facts and admitted by the District — Plaintiff received a three day suspension without pay on March 29, 2018, which was later reduced, and a f