With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of $25,000, and her retirement became effective on January 3, 2014, as she requested. See id. at 1, 4. Defendant contends that Plaintiffs voluntary retirement precludes a reinstatement remedy. See Def.’s Mem. in Support of Mot., ECF No. [51-2], at 32-33. Plaintiff has offered no response to Defendant’s argument on this issue. See Def.’s Reply, ECF No. [58], at 1-2. Plaintiff also has not asserted a “constructive discharge” claim or otherwise contended that her retirement was not voluntary. Upon review of Defendant’s arguments, the record as a whole, and the applicable legal authorities, the Court agrees with Defendant that Plaintiffs voluntary retirement precludes her from her requested remedy of reinstatement. See, e.g., Kalinoski v. Gutierrez, 435 F.Supp.2d 55, 72-73 (D.D.C.2006) (<HOLDING>);, see also id. (citing cases). Accordingly,

A: holding that a title vii plaintiff could not hold coworkers liable in their individual capacities under title vii
B: holding that relief granted under title vii is against the employer not individual employees whose actions constituted a violation of title vii emphasis in original
C: holding that there is no individual liability under title vii
D: holding that a voluntary resignation cuts off a plaintiffs eligibility to recover under title vii beyond the date of the resignation
D.