While I agree that she does not have a claim for discrimination, she may have tort claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Let's have some fun and test it out for VA...
Before I start recognize the biggest problem for Sarah of IIED is the need to be associated physical harm.
But here are the elements 1) The conduct was intentional or reckless. 2) The conduct was outrageous and intolerable. 3) There was a causal connection between the wrongdoer’s conduct and the emotional distress. 4) The emotional distress was severe.
1) Did the owner take the action for the purpose of inflicting emotional distress? 385 S.E.2d 893 (1989)
2) This is, “is aimed at limiting frivolous suits and avoiding litigation in situations where only bad manners and mere hurt feelings are involved.” Womack, 215 Va. at 342, 210 S.E.2d at 148
3)The causation element requires only that the wrongful conduct and the emotional distress be causally connected." Womack v. Eldridge, 215 Va. 338, 342, 210 S.E.2d 145, 148 (1974)
4)“[N]ightmares, depression, low self-esteem, shame, and other similar afflictions have likewise been held insufficient . . . .” See, e.g., McGallon v. Verizon Wireless Unlimited, Inc., 85 Va. Cir. 460, 463
Thoughts