MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff McKenzie Gray brings this action under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq., and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§2000e to 2000e-17, asserting claims against Defendant Onondaga-Cortland-Madison Board of Cooperative Education Services (“BOCES”) for disability discrimination, failure to accommodate, and retaliation. (Dkt. No. 1). Now before the Court is Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, (Dkt. Nos. 56, 65), and Plaintiff’s papers in opposition, (Dkt. No. 64). For the reasons that follow, Defendant’s motion is granted. II. BACKGROUND1 A. Plaintiff’s Employment at BOCES BOCES provides shared educational programs and services to students from school districts within a three-county region of Central New York. (Dkt. No. 1, 7). Plaintiff was hired by BOCES as a part-time teaching assistant in 2012. (Dkt. Nos. 56-25, 7; 64-19, 7). Plaintiff remained in that position throughout her employment at BOCES. (Dkt. No. 56-5, p. 3). Plaintiff’s job duties required her to interact with students with emotional and behavioral disabilities. (Dkt. Nos. 56-25, 11; 64-19, 11). She was responsible for helping manage students’ behavior, assisting with classroom lessons, and otherwise following the classroom teacher’s direction and instructions. (Dkt. No. 56-5, p. 4). Plaintiff was typically assigned to certain classrooms on a yearly basis. (Id., p. 5). Her work hours were 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. (Id., p. 8). B. Plaintiff’s Disabilities Plaintiff has Hashimoto’s disease, an autoimmune disorder that affects the thyroid gland. (Dkt. Nos. 56-25, 12; 64-19, 12). Plaintiff testified that her condition can cause exhaustion and muscle pain, and can affect her mood, metabolism, and her ability to regulate her body temperature. (Dkt. No. 56-5, p. 12). She stated that her condition can cause pain in her back and neck when she becomes stressed. (Id., p. 13). Plaintiff testified that she was able to perform her job duties as a teaching assistant despite her Hashimoto’s disease. (Id., p. 14). She also claimed that her medical condition could require accommodation for the physical parts of the job, such as lifting or restraining destructive, violent, or aggressive students. (Id.). Plaintiff informed BOCES of her Hashimoto’s disease in 2013 on an application for a summer school position, and again in an e-mail about a medical appointment in February 2015. (Dkt. No. 56-5, pp. 16-17). Plaintiff took medical leave for her Hashimoto’s disease from October 22, 2014 to November 5, 2014. (Dkt. No. 56-8). Plaintiff was not disciplined or terminated for taking that leave. (Dkt. No. 56-5, p. 19).2 C. Misconduct Investigation On March 27, 2015, J.M., a minor student in the classroom where Plaintiff was assigned, reported to the classroom social worker, Timothy Hummell, that he and another student, J.C., recently had problems with Plaintiff. (See generally Dkt. No. 56-17). During one incident, J.M. alleged that he and J.C. were sitting together on a school bus when Plaintiff attempted to sit in the same seat with them. (Id., p. 1). J.M. reported that when he and J.C. did not allow Plaintiff to sit with them, she called them “little assholes.” (Id.). During a separate incident, J.M. reported that he was alone in Mr. Hummel’s office when Plaintiff “came in and shut the door.” (Dkt. No. 56-21, 6; see also Dkt. No. 56-17, p. 2). J.M. claimed that Plaintiff asked him why he didn’t like her, and then she blocked him from exiting the office when he tried to leave. (Id.). That same day, Mr. Hummel reported these incidents to the BOCES Principal, Beth Cooper, the other classroom social worker, Renee Fragale, and the classroom teacher, Courtney Tianello. (Dkt. No. 56-17, pp. 2, 4). Ms. Tianello told Mr. Hummel that she had received text messages from Plaintiff stating “that [Plaintiff] was feeling uncomfortable being alone” with J.M. and J.C. (Id., p. 3). Mr. Hummel met with Plaintiff to discuss the incidents, at which time Plaintiff reported that she had received inappropriate notes from J.M. of a sexual nature. (Id., p. 2). J.M. later admitted to Mr. Hummel that he wrote the notes. (Id., p. 3). Mr. Hummel “informed [Plaintiff] that she should avoid being around [J.M. and J.C.]” and met with Plaintiff to “ debrief about her interactions” and “discuss appropriate boundaries.” (Id.). Also on March 27, 2015, Ms. Fragale notified the BOCES Assistant Director of Special Education, Karen Koch, about certain comments that were made to Plaintiff by J.M. and J.C. (Dkt. No. 56-22, 4). Assistant Director Koch then met with Plaintiff and BOCES Principal, Beth Cooper, to investigate the issues raised by Ms. Fragale’s report. (Id., 5). During that meeting, Plaintiff described the comments that were made by students in the classroom. (Id.). Assistant Director Koch recalled that Plaintiff reported that she had spoken with Ms. Fragale about her concerns, that Ms. Fragale had addressed the comments with the students, and that she felt comfortable returning to the classroom. (Id.). Assistant Director Koch told Plaintiff that the comments were not acceptable, and that Plaintiff should bring further concerns directly to her or Principal Cooper. (Id., 6). Assistant Director Koch told Plaintiff that she would ensure that “the students received appropriate consequences,” and informed Plaintiff that she would be assigned to a new classroom “for her own protection from any inappropriate comments.” (Id.). She reported that Plaintiff then “raised strong objections to being removed to another classroom and began downplaying the issues” with the students. (Id., 7). According to Plaintiff, she informed Assistant Director Koch and Principal Cooper that she “enjoyed being in that classroom,” and that she did not want to be reassigned. (Dkt. No. 56-5, pp. 57-58). Plaintiff claimed that “if [the students'] comments and actions were addressed, [] in a meeting with [her] and the two boys [about] what’s appropriate and what’s not, this whole thing could have been avoided.” (Id.). Assistant Director Koch recalled that “Plaintiff’s sudden reversal of her position when told she would be moved to another classroom for her own protection heightened [her] concerns, [because] it appeared Plaintiff was trying to remain in the classroom with J.M. and J.C. and opposing any suggestion that she was uncomfortable with the students’ comments.” (Dkt. No. 56-22, 19). Assistant Director Koch also brought up other performance issues with Plaintiff, including Plaintiff’s text messages to Ms. Tianello about Mr. Hummel in which she claimed he was a “terrible” social worker. (Id., 8). She also told Plaintiff that she had to report to work on time, and that she had received reports and noticed herself that Plaintiff reported to work “late on virtually a daily basis by thirty to forty-five minutes, even though Principal Cooper had spoken to her about the problem.” (Id., 9). According to Assistant Director Koch, Plaintiff claimed she was “having personal problems” that were preventing her from getting to work on time, but “Plaintiff did not say anything suggesting the problems were medical in nature or related to any disability.” (Dkt. No. 56-22, 9; Dkt. No. 56-5, pp. 61-62). Assistant Director Koch encouraged Plaintiff to utilize the employee assistance program if necessary, and reminded Plaintiff that she was expected to arrive to work on time, and that she was not permitted to text colleagues during school hours. (Dkt. No. 56-22,
9-10; Dkt. No. 56-5, pp. 60-61, 63). Assistant Director Koch recalled that Plaintiff “continued to act extremely upset,” so she told Plaintiff that she “could sit in [her] office until she felt calm, or that she could go home if she felt she was too upset to return to the classroom.” (Dkt. No. 56-22, 10). She instructed Plaintiff “not to return to the classroom while emotional as it would be upsetting for the students to see her.” (Id.). Shortly afterward, Assistant Director Koch received a call informing her that Plaintiff had “gone into the classroom crying and upset the students, that she was repeatedly texting the classroom teacher, and that she had returned to [Assistant Director Koch's] office.” (Id., 12). Assistant Director Koch then returned to her office with a union representative and told Plaintiff that she needed to go home. (Id., 15). Plaintiff admits that she was told to go home but insists that she was not upset at the time she returned to the classroom. (Dkt. No. 56-5, pp. 66-67). At the end of the school day on March 27, 2015, Assistant Director Koch met with Principal Cooper, Ms. Fragale, Mr. Hummel, and Ms. Tianello to evaluate the ongoing issues with Plaintiff. (Dkt. No. 56-22, 16). She was “greatly concerned” by the reports she received “as it appeared that Plaintiff was not maintaining appropriate boundaries with the two students, that she was directing inappropriate comments at them, that she was undermining the classroom social workers, and that the management of the classroom in general was a serious problem.” (Id., 18). After the meeting, Assistant Director Koch investigated further and received additional reports from J.C., Mr. Hummell, and Christina Gonzalez, the other teaching assistant in the classroom. (Id.,
