[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 12

- 11750 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 2:10

- cv - 00159

- RWS

LINDSEY MORGAN CRAMER, Plaintiff

- Appellant,

versus

BOJANGLES’ RESTAURANTS, INC.,

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant

- Appellee.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Distr ict of Georgia

________________________ (November 20, 2012)
Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 12-11750 Date Filed: 11/20/2012 Page: 1 of 42 Lindsey Cramer appeals the summary judgment in favor of her former employe r, Bojangles’ Restaurants, Inc., and against her c omplaint of s exual
har assment in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e

- 2(a)(1) , and of violations of Georgia law

. Cramer argues that she established a prima facie case of sexual harassment by a co

- worker ; she was constructively discharged; and Bojangles ratified the tortious conduct of Cramer’s

co - worker and was negligent in supervising and ret aining the co

- worker . We affirm. Cramer failed to prove that Bojangles knew that Cramer had been sexual ly
harasse d by a co

- worker or failed to take prompt remedial action after learning of the harassment. See Nurse “Be” v. Columbia Palms W. Hosp. Ltd. , 490 F.3d 1302, 1309 (11th Cir. 2007) ; Miller v. Kenworth of Dothan, Inc. , 277 F.3d 1269 , 1278 ( 11 th Cir

. 2002 ). Bojangles had a n antidiscrimination policy that required its employees t o report a ny a lleged sexual harassment to t he Area Director, the Regional Vice President, or the Human Resources Department through its
h arassment hot line . Although Cramer signed a copy of the harassm ent policy, she failed to use the channels provided in the policy to complain about the graphic and lewd sexual statements that her co - worker , Fernando Funez , allegedly made on five occasions. See Madray v. Publix Supermarkets, Inc. , 208 F.3d 1290, 1 300 ( 11th Cir. 2000); Coates v. Sundor Brands, Inc. , 164 F.3d 1361, 1364, 1366 (11th

Case: 12-11750 Date Filed: 11/20/2012 Page: 2 of 43 Cir. 1999) . Instead, Cramer complain ed to her immediate supervisor, Sajad Akhtar , about Funez’s “nasty” statements

. When Cramer took the advice of an assistant manager and us ed the harassment hot line to report a sixth incident in which Funez allegedly touched Cramer’s genital area, Bojangles took “reasonable and prompt corrective action” to end the harassment. Nurse “Be” , 490 F.3d at 1309. Within t hree hours of Cramer’s call , the Area Director attempted unsuccessfully to contact Cramer. In the next two weeks, Bojangles suspend ed Funez, investigat ed Cramer’s complaint , and fire d Funez. Cramer also failed to prove that she was constructively discharged. An employee suffers a constructive discharge when her working conditions a re so intolerable that a reasonable person would fe e l compelled to resign. Kilgore v. Thompson & Brock Mgmt., Inc. , 93 F.3d 752 , 754 (11th Cir. 1996 ). Nevertheless, “[a] constructi ve discharge will generally not be found if the employer is not given sufficient time to remedy the situation. ” Id. Cramer failed to notify Bo jangles of Funez’s improper statement s , and she resigned before reporting the alleged sexual harassment through the Bojangles harassment hotline . After she resigned, Cramer would n ot p articipate in Bojangles’ s investigation and never respond ed to Bojangles’ s unconditional offer of reemployment

. Cramer refused to give Bojangles an opportunity to correct the situati on.

Case: 12-11750 Date Filed: 11/20/2012 Page: 3 of 44 Cramer also cannot prevail on her claims under Georgia law. Cramer allege d that Bojangles ratified the assault, battery, false imprisonment, and invasion of privacy committed by Funez, but Cramer failed to present any “evidence that [Funez’s] conduct was done in furtherance of [Bojangles’ s ] business and within the scope of [his] employment.” Hankerson v. Hammett , 647 S.E.2d 319, 323 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). Although
Cramer alleg ed that Bojangles was negligent i n supervising or retaining Funez , Cramer fail ed to “ establish that [Bojangles] reasonably knew or should have known of [Funez’s] ‘ tendencies ’ to engage in [sexual harassment].” Munroe v. Universal Health Servs., Inc. , 596 S.E.2d 604, 606 (Ga. 2004)

. A nd Cr amer could not recover for the alleged “ physiological and psychological effects” of the sexual harassment because “[a] claim for emotional distress caused by negligence must be supported by evidence that the plaintiff suffered an impact resulting in phys ical injury .” Travis Pruitt & Assocs., P.C. v. Hooper , 625 S.E.2d 445, 450 (Ga. Ct. App. 2005)

. B ecause Cramer d id not have a viable claim under state law and present e d no evidence that Bojangles acted in bad faith or wa s stubbornly litigious , Cramer c ou ld not recover punitive damages or recoup her expenses of litigation.
See Benefit Support, Inc. v. Hall Cnty. , 637 S.E.2d 763 , 771 ( Ga. Ct. App. 2006 ); Tower Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Smith , 423 S.E.2d 257 , 264 ( Ga. Ct. App.1992 ).
We AFFIRM the summary judgment in favor of Bojangles’ Restaurants. Case: 12-11750 Date Filed: 11/20/2012 Page: 4 of 4