OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT (Doc. 3) On February 10, 2020, Plaintiff Wellsville Manor, LLC d/b/a Wellsville Manor Care Center filed this action against Defendant Jill L. Campbell in the Supreme Court of New York, Allegany County and alleged claims of injurious falsehood (First Cause of Action) and defamation per se (Second Cause of Action) arising out of statements Defendant allegedly made on or about July 29, 2019 to the New York State Division of Human Rights (“DHR”) and subsequently to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) after Plaintiff terminated her employment. On May 26, 2020, Defendant removed the action to federal court pursuant to the court’s diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §1332(a)(1). On June 2, 2020, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Plaintiff has not opposed the motion. Plaintiff is represented by Jayla Rose Lombardo, Esq. Harvey P. Sanders, Esq., represents Defendant. I. The Complaint’s Allegations. On or about September 15, 2017, Defendant was hired as a speech therapist at a skilled nursing facility operated by Plaintiff. Defendant’s responsibilities “included performing speech and swallowing evaluations, creating speech therapy treatment plans, providing therapeutic treatments within her scope of practice, providing family/caregiver training as necessary, completing appropriate documentation, and working in an integrated manner with other disciplines such as nursing and dietary.” (Doc. 1-1 at 2-3, 5.) Plaintiff alleged that Defendant had “performance problems,” such as failing to follow safety protocols and providing inconsistent care. Plaintiff purportedly received at least two complaints from residents that Defendant failed to provide speech therapy treatments resulting in written and verbal warnings to Defendant. Id. at 3, 6. Plaintiff further alleged that Defendant “committed time theft by falsifying her time sheets[,]” which Plaintiff confirmed by reviewing the video from its surveillance system. Id. at 3, 9. On February 25, 2019, Plaintiff terminated Defendant’s employment. On or about July 29, 2019, Defendant filed complaints with DHR and the EEOC alleging that Plaintiff discriminated against her on the basis of age, disability, and gender and created a hostile work environment. Plaintiff quoted portions of Defendant’s DHR and EEOC complaints as follows: In the beginning of my employ with [Plaintiff] I noticed practices that alarmed me. I had conversations with [the Director of Rehab], complaining about what I considered potentially illegal and fraudulent practices of [Plaintiff]. [T]his was the beginning of [Plaintiff] targeting me in retaliation for what I believe was me being outspoken of the potentially illegal and fraudulent practices I witnessed and made [Plaintiff] aware of. During this meeting I expressed that I felt this was unadulterated and unprofessional harassment. Each time I had to take time off work…I continued to be contacted by [Plaintiff] and harassed. The stress of [Plaintiff's] continual communication only exacerbated my disability. I feel my termination was discrimination based on disability…. I feel their termination was a pretext to their illegal discrimination. It is clear from [Plaintiff's] actions that they were on a witch hunt to find anything they could discipline me for and ultimately cause termination. Any chance [they] got they treated me disparately in violation of the [Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA")]. …[Plaintiff's investigation into allegations of Defendant's job performance] is retaliation for opposing discrimination and was creating a hostile work environment. Id. at 4, 12 (internal quotation marks omitted). After an investigation, DHR found Defendant’s allegation that Plaintiff had unlawfully discriminated against her was not supported by probable cause and further found that: [Defendant] received write-ups for performance issues beginning around February of 2018, prior to the disclosure of her disability to [Plaintiff] in April of 2018…. Investigation did not show any nexus between [Defendant's] age, disability[,] and/or sex and any adverse employment action taken against her. [Plaintiff] has articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory business reason for terminating [Defendant's] employment, which was not shown to be a pretext. (Doc. 1-1 at 5, 16.) DHR dismissed Defendant’s complaint and closed the case. In its Complaint, Plaintiff alleges Defendant’s claims of discrimination “had no basis in law or in fact” and were raised “in bad faith[.]” Id. at 5,
