Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM OPINION KOLLAR-KOTELLY, District Judge. Plaintiff, a longtime EAS-9 secretary in the Employee Development Department of the United States Postal Service, brings this employment discrimination case pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (“ADEA”), alleging that Defendant (“Defendant” or “the Postal Service”) (1) “knowingly and willingly” discriminated against her on the basis of her age when failing to offer her the position of training specialist EAS-21 in 2001; (2) retaliated against her upon her submission of a complaint with the EEOC office; and (3) created a hostile work environment full of continual surveillance and repeated harassment. Currently before the Court is Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, which contends that summary judgment is appropriate with respect to Plaintiffs claims because (1) the Postal Service had legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for not selecting Plaintiff for the promotion at issue, and Plaintiff cannot show the requisite pretext that the Postal Service failed to promote her on the basis of her age; and (2) Plaintiff failed to exhaust her retaliation and hostile work environment claims and, in any event, cannot establish a prima facie case to support either allegation. Upon a searching examination of Defendant’s motion, Plaintiffs Opposition, Defendant’s Reply, the relevant case law, and the entire record herein, the Court shall grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and dismiss the above-captioned action. I: BACKGROUND Plaintiff Gloria Singleton is a longtime employee of the Postal Service who was initially hired in 1986. See Pl.’s Opp’n, Ex. 1 (Singleton Dep.) at 76. In 1990, Plaintiff was transferred to the Postal Service Headquarters in Washington, D.C., and later promoted to senior word processor. See First Am. Compl. ¶¶ 17-18. In 1996, Plaintiff was placed in the Employee Development Department at Headquarters. Id.; Pl.’s Opp’n, Ex. 1 (Singleton Dep.) at 77, 81. In the Employee Development Department (“the Department”), Plaintiff worked as a level EAS-9 secretary, wherein her responsibilities included handling administrative duties and assisting team leaders in the Department. Def.’s Stmt, of Mat. Facts Not in Dispute (“Def.’s Stmt.”) ¶ 3; Pl.’s Stmt, of Facts that Remain in Dispute Necessitating the Denial of Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. (“Pl.’s Stmt.”)' ¶ 3. During a roughly two month period from January 6, 2001, until March 2, 2001, Plaintiff was detailed into a EAS-21 “Training Specialist” position as a developmental assignment. Def.’s Stmt. ¶4; Pl.’s Stmt. ¶4. During this developmental detail, Plaintiffs responsibilities included handling administrative duties, as well as engaging in some budgetary duties that consisted of monitoring the expenses for the Department. Id. Plaintiffs budgetary duties in her detail did not involve the preparation of budgets or decision-making responsibilities. Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 5; Pl.’s Stmt. ¶ 5. A. Novr-Selection In early 2001, Plaintiff applied for a permanent position as an EAS-21 Training Specialist. Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 7; PL’s Stmt. ¶ 7. At the time of Plaintiffs application, she was fifty-five (55) years old. Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 10; PL’s Stmt. ¶10. The only other applicant for the position was Ms. Joyce Ghu, who was thirty-four (34) years old at the time of her application. Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 11; PL’s Stmt. ¶ 11. At the time of the announcement, Ms. Ghu worked in an EAS-14 position in the Workplace Environment Department at Postal Service Headquarters handling administrative responsibilities, and had been with the Postal Service for roughly four (4) years. PL’s Opp’n, Ex. 2 (Dep. of William Koukos, EAS-25 team leader and selecting official) (“Koukos Dep.”) at 27:1-19; Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. 1 (Koukos Dep.) at 33:19-22. The vacancy announcement for the EAS-21 Training Specialist position described the responsibilities of the position as including “development programs, corporate training objectives, evaluation training, and development issues.” PL’s Stmt. ¶ 6 (citing Koukos Dep. at 24:20-25:3). While the words “budget” or “budgeting issues” were not directly listed under either the responsibilities or requirements of the position in the vacancy announcement, PL’s Opp’n, Ex. 2 (Koukos Dep.) at 24:12-19, 26:5-8, included among the functional purposes explicitly named was “analysis,” id. at 24:12-16, and included among the seven requirements identified on the announcement for the position was “contracting officer representatives,” id. at 26:3-4. Mr. William Koukos, a level EAS-25 team leader who indirectly supervised Plaintiff, was the selecting official for the EAS-21 Training Specialist position, while Ms. Carol Aspengren was the approving official for the position. Def.’s Stmt. ¶¶ 8-9; PL’s Stmt. ¶¶ 8-9. After both candidates were interviewed by Mr. Koukos, see Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J, Ex. 1 (Koukos Dep.) at 33, Ms. Ghu was selected for the Training Specialist position on March 2, 2001. Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 11; PL’s Stmt. ¶ 11. According to Mr. Koukos, Ms. Ghu was chosen for two major reasons. Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 13. First, he believed that Ms. Ghu’s qualifications were superior to those of Plaintiff. Id.; see also Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J, Ex. 1 (Koukos Dep.) at 33. Specifically, he felt that Ms. Ghu was “just a brighter individual” with better “[ojverall work experience and background,” id., especially given the fact that — in contrast to Plaintiff, who did not have a college degree, Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 13; Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. 2 (Singleton Dep.) at 70— Ms. Ghu was a college graduate with a degree in finance. See Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. 2 (Singleton Dep.) at 70-71. In contrast, Mr. Koukos understood that Plaintiffs primary responsibilities in her limited EAS-21 detail included handling administrative matters and providing support to the EAS-21 position, and that while she monitored expenses for the Department, Plaintiff was not involved in the preparation of budgets or decision-making responsibilities. Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 14 (citing Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. 1 (Koukos Dep.) at 14-21; Ex. 2 (Singleton Dep.) at 61-63, 67); see also PL’s Stmt. ¶ 14 (adding that her EAS-9 “responsibilities included training activities and employee development”). Second, Mr. Koukos was aware of Plaintiffs “attendance issues,” and indicated that Plaintiffs attendance problems had a “significant impact” on the selection decision. Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 17; Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. 1 (Koukos Dep.) 48:2-14; see ateo PL’s Stmt. ¶ 17 (noting that, “[a]t times plaintiff arrived at work late but she would nonetheless arrive at work”). Plaintiff currently resides in Baltimore, Maryland, and did so during the relevant period in question. Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 18; PL’s Stmt. ¶ 18. As such, her commute to the Postal Service’s Headquarters in Washington, D.C., was often approximately two to two and a half hours. Id.; Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. 2 (Singleton Dep.) at 5-7. Due to the length of her commute, Plaintiff was frequently tardy to work, even “a couple of times a month, at least” by her own admission. Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 19; PL’s Stmt. ¶ 19; Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. 2 (Singleton Dep.) at 7; see also Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. 1 (Koukos Dep.) at 61:7-62:3 (noting that he discussed orally Plaintiffs tardiness problems with her “[e]very week, a couple of times a week” for “[a] good part of the detail”); Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J., Ex 5 (Decís, of Messrs. James French and Charles Johnson) at ¶3, 1 (noting that “[f]rom January 2001 through March 2003,” each individual had “observed Gloria Singleton reporting late for work once or twice every week,” that “it was not uncommon for Gloria to be an hour or more late for work,” and that her “supervisors had several conversations with her regarding her poor attendance”). Even after the Postal Service had accommodated Plaintiffs long commute and frequent tardiness by changing her starting time from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., Plaintiff continued to arrive tardy. Id. In contrast, Ms. Ghu — who resided in Richmond, Virginia, during 2001 — had a reputation for arriving to work everyday on time despite her lengthy commute. Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 21; PL’s Stmt. ¶ 21. After Plaintiffs non-selection, which was announced on March 2, 2001, Plaintiff filed a charge of discrimination against the Postal Service with the EEO Compliance and Appeals in Washington, D.C, on March 12, 2001. First Am. Compl. ¶ 9. Plaintiff felt that “age was a determining factor in her not being selected by the Defendant for the position for which she had applied.” Id. ¶ 27. Specifically, Plaintiff stressed that she “had experience in training, employee development, and curriculum longer than Ms. Ghu had been with the [PJostal [S]ervice,” she “had been detailed into this very same position prior to not being selected for the permanent position,” and “[a]fter Ms. Ghu was placed in the position, she constantly sought help from the plaintiff and she was told by Mr. Koukos to help her.” PL’s Stmt. ¶ 14. However, as Plaintiff noted at her deposition, she did not hear anyone in the Department’s management indicate that they wanted someone younger than her for the permanent EAS-21 position. Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 16; PL’s Stmt. ¶ 16; Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J., Ex 2 (Singleton Dep.) at 87. Given the above-mentioned facts, Count I of Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint alleges that the Postal Service “knowingly and willingly discriminated against the plaintiff on the basis of her age in violation of the ADEA” when it declined to offer her the permanent position as an EAS-21 Training Specialist. First Am. Compl. ¶ 41. According to Plaintiff, “[a]s a result of the discriminatory conduct of the defendant,” she has suffered “lost wages,” “that being the salary that she would have earned in the EAS-21 position had it been offered to her in 2001 as opposed to the salary she continued to earn upon not being offered the position.” Id. ¶ 42. B. Retaliation and Hostile Work Environment After Plaintiffs non-selection to the EAS-21 Training Specialist position, Plaintiff began to perform secretarial duties for Mr. William Stefl in addition to her preexisting responsibilities “right after March 2001.” Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 22; Pl.’s Stmt. ¶ 22; Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. 2 (Singleton Dep.) at 17:15-25. Due to a reduction in force, Mr. Stefl no longer had a personal secretary, and Plaintiff and Ms. Cheryl Seay were left as the only secretaries in the unit, which consisted of approximately 30 people. Id.; see also Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. 2 (Singleton Dep.) at 22:15-25. Plaintiff alleges that, at this time, Ms. Aspengren told Plaintiff that “she did not appreciate that [Plaintiff] filed the [EEO] complaint.” First Am. Compl. ¶ 28; Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. 2 (Singleton Dep.) at 24:18-23. After this statement, Plaintiff contends that she was subjected to near-constant retaliation and a hostile work environment, as made apparent in nine separate incidents. See First Am. Compl. ¶¶ 28-39. First, Plaintiff asserts that both Ms. As-pengren and Plaintiffs post-January 2003 supervisor, Mr. Ronald Worthy, increased her workload “in comparison to other employees in comparable positions” and gave her work that was the responsibility of others. Id. ¶¶ 29-30, 32. Plaintiff contends that the worHoad increase was such that she was forced to eat lunch at her desk “[ajlmost every day” in order to meet the workload demands. PL’s Opp’n, Ex. 1 (Singleton Dep.) at 89:16-23. However, Plaintiff admits that she was able to complete all of the work assigned to her during her regular work hours, Def.’s Stmt. ¶¶ 23, 34; PL’s Stmt. ¶¶ 23, 34; PL’s Opp’n, Ex. 1 (Singleton Dep.) at 101-02, and concedes that she did not know the extent of the secretarial responsibilities and duties of her counterpart, Ms. Seay, because Ms. Seay “sat at the other side of the office” and Plaintiff “couldn’t see her, physically see her.” Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 23; PL’s Opp’n, Ex. 1 (Singleton Dep.) at 89:9-15. Second, Plaintiff alleges that on March 23, 2001, Mr. Koukos and she engaged in a conversation at her desk. PL’s Stmt. ¶ 40; PL’s Opp’n, Ex. 1 (Singleton Dep.) at 15-16. When speaking about an employee out on “sick leave” named “Jane,” who was approximately one (1) year younger than Plaintiff, Mr. Koukos purportedly stated to Plaintiff: “When you get up to that age, also, you start having problems.” PL’s Opp’n, Ex. 1 (Singleton Dep.) at 15:2-3. Plaintiff, during her deposition, stated that because she’s “a year younger than Jane,” she felt like “that’s a reference to my age.” Id. at 15:4-5. Third, Plaintiff asserts that Mr. Dale Ellis notified her that he wanted to give her a $100 spot bonus in September 2001 as an “award for something I did for him.” First Am. Compl. ¶ 31; PL’s Opp’n, Ex. 1 (Singleton Dep.) at 19:5-10. However, according to Plaintiff, Mr. Ellis told her that Ms. Aspengren intervened, and “wound up saying, ‘Just give her $50.’ ” PL’s Opp’n, Ex. 1 (Singleton Dep.) at 19:7-8. As such, Plaintiff received only a $50 spot bonus, not the $100 spot bonus originally planned by Mr. Ellis. Id. at 19:5-10. Fourth, Plaintiff contends that in late 2001, whenever she arrived at work late or got out of her seat, Ms. Aspengren made a notation to that effect in a calendar that she kept in her office. Pl.’s Stmt. ¶ 45; Pl.’s Opp’n, Ex. 1 (Singleton Dep.) at 22:2-14. According to Plaintiff, Ms. Seay showed her the calendar with the notations. Pl.’s Stmt. ¶ 45; PL’s Opp’n, Ex. 1 (Singleton Dep.) at 25:11-16. Plaintiff contends that even though other employees sometimes were late for work, no other employees had their arrival times listed on Ms. Aspengren’s calendar. Id. During this same general time period, Plaintiff also alleges that Mr. Koukos would “stand over the individual who recorded [P]laintiffs time and attendance at work and yet he did not do that for any other employees.” PL’s Stmt. ¶ 45. According to Plaintiff, she believed that Mr. Koukos was “just checking up on me.... Scrutinizing me.... Just to make it more hostile to me.” PL’s Opp’n, Ex. 1 (Singleton Dep.) at 48:4-10. Fifth, Plaintiff believes that she applied for an EAS-11 secretarial position vacated by Ms. Seay upon her retirement in November 2001. Def.’s Stmt. ¶24; PL’s Stmt. ¶ 24. However, Plaintiff admits that she cannot recall being interviewed for that job. Id.; see also Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. 2 (Singleton Dep.) at 40:1-5. According to Plaintiff, despite Ms. Aspen-gren’s animus towards her, Ms. Aspengren promised this position to Plaintiff “[rjight before Cheryl retired in November.” Id. at 40:13-15. However, by early 2002, Plaintiff discovered that Ms. Anita Nash had been given the position. Def.’s Stmt. ¶24; PL’s Stmt. ¶24. When Plaintiff questioned this decision, she claims that she was told by Mr. Koukos: “Sorry about that, we had to give it to her ... because she was RIFed.” Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. 2 (Singleton Dep.) at 40:16-41:7 (meaning that, as Plaintiff explained, Ms. Nash’s old job was subject to a “reduction in force” but this decision allowed the Postal Service to keep her as an employee). When Plaintiff was asked to explain her basis for concluding that she did not get the job in retaliation for filing an EEO complaint, she simply stated: “I feel they did that just -for reprisal.” Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 24; PL’s Stmt. ¶ 24; Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. 2 (Singleton Dep.) at 40:18-19. Sixth, after Mr. Worthy became Plaintiffs supervisor in January 2003, she contends that he asked her to clean out cubicles for new employees on three different occasions — a request made to no other comparable employee. PL’s Opp’n, Ex. 1 (Singleton Dep.) at 133:23-134:4; see also PL’s Stmt. ¶ 48. According to Plaintiff, “Pm not a janitor.... I would think that the computer people would take the computers out and the maintenance people would come up and clean it out. Not me, clean drawers and stuff.” Id. at 144:14-19. However, Plaintiff did note that this task included preserving some material, such as “[pjapers and stuff that was left [in the desk drawers] from whoever was sitting there, and the books, and putting them somewhere, and cleaning it up.” Id. at 144:21-23. Plaintiff indicated that she kept “what I thought was to keep, like, if they were books or manuals for training” that the maintenance people would have otherwise thrown out. Id. at 145:5-13. Seventh, Plaintiff contends that she was treated differently by Mr. Worthy with respect to annual leave. Plaintiff notes that after she missed three (3) days of work due to a bursitis condition in her leg, and used annual (rather than sick) leave to cover the missed time, Mr. Worthy required her to bring a doctor’s note — -a requirement that he did not enforce for “any other employees in the [Department.” PL’s Stmt. ¶ 47. Eighth, Plaintiff claims that she suffered further retaliation and hostility when, on March 6, 2003, she requested a temporary assignment appointment to an EAS-21 Training Development Specialist position that had recently been vacated. First Am. Compl. ¶ 33; Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 27; Pl.’s Stmt. ¶ 27. According to Plaintiff, Mr. Worthy called her into his office and indicated to her that he would not detail her into the EAS-21 position because “he was going to fill it fairly quickly” and had no need for a temporary detail. Pl.’s Opp’n, Ex. 1 (Singleton Dep.) at 124:18-22; Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 28; Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. (Ex. 3) (Worthy Dep.) at 24-25. Plaintiff further indicated in her deposition that Mr. Worthy also told her that she “should just retire” and that “he wouldn’t give me a 21 job anyway.” PL’s Opp’n, Ex. 1 (Singleton Dep.) at 124:18-22; see also PL’s Stmt. ¶ 41; First Am. Compl. ¶ 35 (“Mr. Worthy further informed Ms. Singleton that she wasn’t committed enough, should just consider retiring and wouldn’t give Plaintiff the position even if she put in for it.”). In his deposition, Mr. Worthy told a slightly different story: As I recall a couple of points came up in discussion. One was I wanted to post and fill this position as soon as I could. That was my intention and I believe what I told Gloria was that this wouldn’t enable her to have a substantial opportunity on the detail because I wanted to post it as soon as possible. I didn’t want to put someone there for 30 days and then potentially have a change if she wasn’t a successful applicant. The second reason, I did indicate to Gloria that I had concerns about her dependability. I had concerns about [her] commitment and resolve to work. Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. 3 (Worthy Dep.) at 24:20-25:11. It is, however, uncontested that Mr. Worthy spoke with Plaintiff on numerous occasions, both prior to and after he March 6, 2003 detail request, about his concerns regarding her dependability due to her irregular attendance and unscheduled absences. Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 29; PL’s Stmt. ¶ 29; see also Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. 3 (Worthy Dep.) at 28:8-22 (noting that he tried to conduct “helpful” conversations with Plaintiff where he indicated that her frequent unscheduled absences had a significant impact because it made it difficult for him to plan and “I said if you want to go to other locations and senior managers look at your attendance it becomes challenging for that manager to make a favorable decision”). The individual ultimately awarded the EAS-21 position, Ms. Lienwand, was placed in the position effective July 7, 2003, but did not physically assume the position for over a year. See PL’s Opp’n, Ex. 3 (Worthy Dep.) at 37-38. Plaintiff did not file a complaint with the EEO over this event, admitting: “I should have, but I had this going. I didn’t want to, like, beat a dead horse, you know.” Def.’s Reply, Ex. 1 (Singleton Dep.) at 119:13-16. Ninth, and finally, Plaintiff contends that the Postal Service further retaliated against her by “accusing [P]laintiff of stealing monies, searching her desk and workplace, initiating an investigation against the plaintiff in which she is being investigated for stealing monies and placing the plaintiff on administrative leave.” First Am. Compl. ¶ 39. Plaintiffs allegation refers to the fact that, since 2001, she had been given the petty cash responsibility by Ms. Aspengren. for the purchase and safekeeping of American Express Gift Checks to be distributed as a form of recognition to various individuals in the Department or outside the office as requested by the team leaders or a manager. Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 35; PL’s Stmt. ¶ 35. During February 2004, Mr. Koukos and Ms. Pat Deshazo, the Department’s budgeting coordinator, conducted an inventory on the gift checks, wherein they discovered that three (3) one-hundred dollar ($100) checks were unaccounted for and missing. Def.’s Stmt. ¶¶ 36-37; PL’s Stmt. ¶¶ 36-37. When questioned, Plaintiff admitted that in late 2003, she had taken and cashed three (3) one-hundred dollar ($100) American Express Traveler’s Checks that she planned to use “to buy McDonald’s certificates and buy some things in the postal store.” Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 38; PL’s Stmt. ¶ 38; Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. 2 (Singleton Dep.) at 58:14-16. Plaintiff stated that it was her practice to give out the certificates on her own, see Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. 2 (Singleton Dep.) at 56-57, and that she did so without keeping any records, id. at 57:22-25 (“I didn’t keep a record of it.”). Plaintiff also acknowledged that, on “probably one” other occasion, “I might have used one of them [the McDonald’s gift certificates] to treat myself [to purchase food]. I didn’t think any thing was wrong with it.” Def.’s Reply, Ex. 1 (Singleton Dep.) at 118:7-13. According to Plaintiff, she “hadn’t gotten around to buying” the three (3) gift checks that had been unaccounted for “because I had some illness in my family, and I was sick.” Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. 1 (Singleton Dep.) at 58:13-16. After attempting to explain herself to Mr. Koukos and Mr. Worthy, Plaintiff was placed on administrative leave with pay in March 2004 pending an investigation into the alleged misappropriation of American Express Gift Checks that were in Plaintiffs custody. Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 39; PL’s Stmt. ¶¶ 39, 49. Plaintiff contends that she was subject to “pervasive and severe working conditions” when her supervisors “blamed her for the stolen checks.” PL’s Opp’n at 21-22. Based upon the facts surrounding these nine separate incidents, Plaintiff asserts— in Counts II and III of her First Amended Complaint — that after she filed a complaint with the EEOC office complaining of age discrimination in March 2001, the Postal Service “took a number of hostile and adverse actions against the plaintiff in retaliation for plaintiff filing the complaint with the EEOC,” and “engaged in a pattern of behavior so as to create a hostile work environment.” First Am. Compl. ¶¶ 44, 46. Based upon her assertions contained within Count I (Age Discrimination), Count II (Retaliation), and Count III (Hostile Work Environment — Retaliation), Plaintiff requests (1) entry of judgment in her favor; (2) back pay; (3) promotion to the position of Training Specialist, EAS-21, or, in the alternative, front pay; (4) liquidated damages pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 626(b); (5) attorney’s fees and costs; and (6) all other appropriate remedies to effectuate the purposes of the ADEA. Id. at 17-18 (Prayer for Relief). II: LEGAL STANDARDS A party is entitled to summary judgment if the pleadings, depositions, and affidavits demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact in dispute and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Tao v. Freeh, 27 F.3d 635, 638 (D.C.Cir.1994). Under the summary judgment standard, Defendant, as the moving party, bears the “initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for [its] motion, and identifying those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits which [it] believe[s] demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Plaintiff, in response to Defendants’ motion, must “go beyond the pleadings and by [his] own affidavits, or depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, ‘designate’ specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548 (internal citations omitted). Although a court should draw all inferences from the supporting records submitted by the nonmoving party, the mere existence of a factual dispute, by itself, is not sufficient to bar summary judgment. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). To be material, the factual assertion must be capable of affecting the substantive outcome of the litigation; to be genuine, the issue must be supported by sufficient admissible evidence that a reasonable trier-of-fact could find for the non-moving party. Laningham v. U.S. Navy, 813 F.2d 1236, 1242-43 (D.C.Cir.1987); Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 251, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (the court must determine “whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law”). “If the evidence is merely color-able, or is not sufficiently probative, summary judgment may be granted.” Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 249-50, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (internal citations omitted). “Mere allegations or denials in the adverse party’s pleadings are insufficient to defeat an otherwise proper motion for summary judgment.” Williams v. Callaghan, 938 F.Supp. 46, 49 (D.D.C.1996). The adverse party must do more than simply “show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). Instead, while the movant bears the initial responsibility of identifying those portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the burden shifts to the non-movant to “come forward with ‘specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.’” Id. at 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)) (emphasis in original). Importantly, “[wjhile summary judgment must be approached with specific caution in discrimination cases, a plaintiff is not relieved of her obligation to support her allegations by affidavits or other competent evidence showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Morgan v. Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp., 172 F.Supp.2d 98, 104 (D.D.C.2001) (quoting Calhoun v. Johnson, No. 95-2397, 1998 WL 164780, at *3 (D.D.C. Mar.31, 1998) (internal citation omitted), aff'd, No. 99-5126, 1999 WL 825425, at *1 (D.C.Cir. Sept.27, 2000)); see also Marshall v. James, 276 F.Supp.2d 41, 47 (D.D.C.2003) (special caution “does not eliminate the use of summary judgment in discrimination cases”) (citing cases). “Summary judgment is not a ‘disfavored procedural shortcut,’ but is an integral procedural tool which promotes the speedy and inexpensive resolution of every case.” Marshall, 276 F.Supp.2d at 47 (quoting Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 327, 106 S.Ct. 2548). Accordingly, the Court reviews the defendant’s motion for summary judgment under a “heightened standard” that reflects “special caution.” Aka, 116 F.3d at 879 (internal quotations omitted). Nonetheless, while this special standard is more exacting, it is not inherently preclusive. Although more circumspect, the Court will continue to grant a motion for summary judgment in which the nonmoving party has failed to submit evidence that creates a genuine factual dispute and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Ill: DISCUSSION In its Motion for Summary Judgment, the Postal Service makes two central arguments: (1) “Defendant had legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for not selecting Plaintiff for the promotion at issue, and Plaintiff cannot show that Defendant failed to promote Plaintiff because of her age”; and (2) “Plaintiff failed to exhaust her retaliation and hostile work environment claims and, in any event, cannot establish a prima facie case to support either one.” Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. at 2. The Court shall address each of the Postal Service’s arguments in turn, first examining Plaintiffs age discrimination claim (Count I) and then analyzing Plaintiffs retaliation and retaliatory hostile work environment allegations (Counts II and III). A. Count I — Age Discrimination in Plaintiffs Application for the EAS-21 Position 1. Proper Standards The ADEA makes it “unlawful for an employer ... to fail or refuse to hire or discharge ... or discriminate against any individual [who is at least forty (40) years old] ... because of such individual’s age.” 29 U.S.C. § 623(a)(1) (1994); see id. § 631(a). In analyzing a discrimination claim under the ADEA, courts are to apply the framework developed in the context of Title VII litigation. See Hall v. Giant Food, Inc., 175 F.3d 1074, 1077 (D.C.Cir.1999); Paquin v. Fed. Nat'l Mortgage Ass’n, 119 F.3d 23, 26 (D.C.Cir.1997). As such, to prove an ADEA violation, Plaintiff must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the actions taken by the employer were “more likely than not based on the consideration of impermissible factors” such as race or gender. Tex. Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 254, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Where the record contains no direct evidence of discrimination, it is necessary to employ the McDonnell Douglas tripartite burden-shifting framework. Cones v. Shalala, 199 F.3d 512, 516 (D.C.Cir.2000) (citing McDonnell Douglas v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973)). It is the district court’s responsibility to closely adhere to this analysis and go no further, as it does not sit as a “super-personnel department that reexamines an entity’s business decisions.” Fischbach v. D.C. Dep’t of Corr., 86 F.3d 1180, 1183 (D.C.Cir.1996) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). In this case, Plaintiff argues that “[t]here is direct of evidence of discrimination present in this case,” thereby rendering the McDonnell Douglas framework inapplicable. Pl.’s Opp’n at 9. Plaintiff points to only two pieces of evidence to support her assertion: (1) her late March 2001 conversation with Mr. Koukos regarding another employee named Jane, where Mr. Koukos allegedly remarked ‘When you get up to that age, also, you start having problems,” PL’s Opp’n, Ex. 1 (Singleton Dep.) at 15:2-3; and (2) her memory of Mr. Worthy, in March 2003, telling her that he would never put her in an EAS-21 Training Specialist position and that she should just retire, PL’s Opp’n, Ex. 1 (Singleton Dep.) at 124:18-22; see also PL’s Stmt. ¶ 41; First Am. Compl. ¶ 35 (“Mr. Worthy further informed Ms. Singleton that she wasn’t committed enough, should just consider retiring and wouldn’t give Plaintiff the position even if she put in for it.”). According to Plaintiff, Mr. Koukos’s alleged statement shows his belief “that a woman of Ms. Singleton’s age started to have problems (presumably health related) and one can certainly infer from such a statement that an elderly person in his view should not be promoted.” PL’s Opp’n at 9. Plaintiff also suggests that comment purportedly made by Mr. Worthy “go[es] a long way in establishing that the defendant had discriminatory animus towards older workers generally and the plaintiff specifically.” Id. at 9-10. Two problems exist with Plaintiffs assertion of direct evidence. First, the statement attributed to Mr. Koukos— “When you get up to that age, also, you start having problems,” Pl.’s Opp’n, Ex. 1 (Singleton Dep.) at 15:2-3 — occurred after Plaintiffs non-selection into the EAS-21 position and referred to another employee, not Plaintiff. As such, it is — at best— indirect evidence of discriminatory animus. Indeed, Plaintiff, by arguing that “one can certainly infer” Mr. Koukos’s views from the comment, is implicitly acknowledging its indirect nature. Second, it is undisputed that Mr. Worthy did not become Plaintiffs supervisor until January 2003. Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 25; PL’s Stmt. ¶ 25. Given that it is uncontested that Mr. Worthy had no role in Plaintiffs EAS-21 non-selection in March 2001 and did not supervise her work until nearly two (2) years later, his alleged statements cannot be direct evidence of impermissible age discrimination underpinning her March 2001 non-selection. Left with no direct evidence of discriminatory intent vis-á-vis her EAS-21 non-selection identified in Count I, Plaintiff must “establish unlawful age discrimination by relying on the familiar burden-shifting framework first articulated in McDonnell Douglas [.]” Hall, 175 F.3d at 1077. Under the McDonnell Douglas paradigm, Plaintiff has the initial burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence a “prima facie” case of discrimination. McDonnell Douglas, 411 U.S. at 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668. To establish a prima facie case of age discrimination in violation of the strictures of the ADEA, Plaintiff must show that: (1) she was a member of the ADEA’s protected class of persons over forty (40) years of age; (2) she was qualified for her position and was performing her job well enough to meet her employer’s legitimate expectations; (3) she suffered an adverse employment action despite her qualifications and performance; and (4) she was disadvantaged in favor of similarly situated younger employees. See Hall, 175 F.3d at 1077; Paquin, 119 F.3d at 26 (citing Coburn v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 711 F.2d 339, 342 (D.C.Cir.1983)). “The burden of establishing a prima facie case of disparate treatment is not onerous,” Burdine, 450 U.S. at 253, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207, and because the McDonnell Douglas model of the prima facie case is not “rigid, mechanized, or ritualistic,” its requirements can vary depending on the factual context. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506, 512, 122 S.Ct. 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 1 (2002). If Plaintiff succeeds in meeting the four requirements for a prima facie case of age discrimination, the burden shifts to Defendant to articulate some legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for Plaintiffs non-selection, and to produce credible evidence supporting its claim. Id. Defendant’s burden is only one of production, and it “need not persuade the court that it was actually motivated by the proffered reasons.” Burdine, 450 U.S. at 254, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207; see also St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 509, 113 S.Ct. 2742, 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993) (“[T]he determination that a defendant has met its burden of production (and has thus rebutted any legal presumption of intentional discrimination) can involve no credibility assessment.”). As such, “the McDonnell Douglas framework shifts intermediate evidentiary burdens between the parties, [t]he ultimate burden of persuading the trier of fact that the defendant intentionally discriminated against the plaintiff remains at all times with the plaintiff.” Morgan v. Fed. Home Loan Mortgage Corp., 328 F.3d 647, 651 (D.C.Cir.2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 881, 124 S.Ct. 325, 157 L.Ed.2d 146 (2003); see also Burdine, 450 U.S. at 253, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207. If Defendant is successful, then “the McDonnell Douglas framework — with its presumptions and burdens — disappears], and the sole remaining issue [is] discrimination vel non.” Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133, 142-43, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). At that point, Plaintiff has the burden of persuasion to show that defendant’s proffered reason was not the true reason for the employment decision. Burdine, 450 U.S. at 256, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207. Pretext may be established “directly by persuading the court that a discriminatory reason more likely motivated the employer or indirectly by showing that the employer’s proffered explanation is unworthy of credence.” Id. at 256, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207; see also Reeves, 530 U.S. at 143, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105. “Proof that the defendant’s explanation is unworthy of credence is simply one form of circumstantial evidence that is probative of intentional discrimination, and it may be quite persuasive.” Reeves, 530 U.S. at 147, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (citing St. Mary’s Honor Ctr., 509 U.S. at 517, 113 S.Ct. 2742) (“[P]roving the employer’s reason false becomes part of (and often considerably assists) the greater enterprise of proving that the real reason was intentional discrimination.”); see also Aka v. Washington Hosp. Center, 156 F.3d 1284, 1290 (D.C.Cir.1998) (“[A] plaintiffs discrediting of an employer’s stated reason for its employment decision is entitled to considerable weight.”). Notably, the Supreme Court has taken care to instruct trial courts that “a plaintiffs prima facie case, combined with sufficient evidence to find that the employer’s justification is false, may permit the trier of fact to conclude that the employer unlawfully discriminated.” Reeves, 530 U.S. at 148, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105. “[T]he trier of fact may still consider the evidence establishing the plaintiffs prima facie case ‘and inferences properly drawn therefrom ... on the issue of whether the defendant’s explanation is pretextual.” Id. at 143, 120 S.Ct. 2097, 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (quoting Burdine, 450 U.S. at 255 n. 10, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207). The Court of Appeals has distilled this analysis, noting that the jury can infer discrimination from the combination of: (1) the plaintiffs prima facie case; (2) any evidence the plaintiff presents to attack the employer’s proffered explanation for its actions; and (3) any further evidence of discrimination that may be available to the plaintiff (such as independent evidence of discriminatory statements of attitudes on the part of the employer) or any contrary evidence that may be available to the employer (such as evidence of a strong record in equal opportunity employment). Aka, 156 F.3d at 1289. However, evidence in each of the three categories is not required. Id. “At this stage, if [plaintiff] is unable to adduce evidence that could allow a reasonable trier of fact to conclude that [defendant’s] proffered reason was a pretext for discrimination, summary judgment must be entered against [plaintiff].” Paquin, 119 F.3d at 27-28. “[T]he court must consider all the evidence in its full context in deciding whether the plaintiff has met his burden of showing that a reasonable jury could conclude that he has suffered discrimination.” Aka, 156 F.3d at 1290. 2. Application of the McDonnell Douglas Analysis Here, the Postal Service notes that “[f]or the purposes of this Motion, the Court can assume that Plaintiff was qualified for the EAS-21 Training Specialist position that she did not receive in 2001.” Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. at 7. As such, the Postal Service has effectively conceded that Plaintiff meets the prima facie case for establishing age discrimination. An independent review of the evidence before the Court supports this concession: (1) Plaintiff was fifty-five (55) years old in March 2001, the time of her non-selection to the EAS-21 Training Specialist position, Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 10; Pl.’s Stmt. ¶ 10; (2) the Postal Service admits, for the purposes of the Court’s consideration of its summary judgment motion, that Plaintiff was qualified for the position, Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. at 7; (3) Plaintiff was not selected for the promotion, and this denial is sufficient to constitute an adverse employment action, see Burlington Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 761, 118 S.Ct. 2257, 141 L.Ed.2d 633 (1998) (“A tangible employment action constitutes a significant change in employment status, such as hiring, firing, failing to promote, reassignment with significantly different responsibilities, or a decision causing-a significant change in benefits.”); and (4) the individual chosen for the position, Ms. Ghu, was thirty-four (34) years old at the time of the selection, making her younger than Plaintiff, Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 11; Pi’s Stmt. ¶ 11. The burden now shifts under the McDonnell Douglas analysis to the Postal Service to provide some legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for Plaintiffs non-selection, and to produce credible evidence supporting its claim. The Postal Service has adduced two legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for choosing Ms. Ghu over Plaintiff for the EAS-21 Training Specialist position. First, the Postal Service has introduced substantial evidence indicating that the selecting officer, Mr. Koukos, believed that Ms. Ghu was more qualified to handle the position than Plaintiff. Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 13; Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. 1 (Koukos Dep.) at 33. In contrast to Plaintiff, who did not have a college degree, Ms. Ghu possessed a B.A. in finance, and was considered by Mr. Koukos to be “just a brighter individual” with better “[ojverall work experience and background.” Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 13; Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. 2 (Singleton Dep.) at 70-71. While at the time of her application, Plaintiff was in the midst of a short, two-month long temporary detail in the EAS-21 position, Mr. Koukos emphasized that Plaintiff was not involved in the preparation of budgets or decision-making responsibilities- — two key responsibilities in the position. Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 14; Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. 1 (Koukos Dep.) at 14-21, Ex. 2 (Singleton Dep.) at 61-63, 67. Because he felt that Ms. Ghu possessed a better background in these areas, was brighter, and had more training, Mr. Koukos favored Ms. Ghu in his recommendation. Id. Second, the Postal Service introduced a significant amount of evidence highlighting the fact that Plaintiff had significant attendance problems during her time in the Department — problems that factored into her non-selection. Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 17; Pl.’s Stmt. ¶ 17; Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. 1 (Koukos Dep.) at 48:2-14. During her long commute from Baltimore, Maryland, Plaintiff was often two to two and half hours late for work, and continued to arrive tardy even after the Postal Service pushed back her start time in order to accommodate her needs. Def.’s Stmt. ¶¶ 18-19; PL’s Stmt. ¶¶ 18-19. Indeed, Plaintiff was late “a couple of times a month, at least” by her own admission, and “once or twice every week” according to her co-workers, despite frequent conversations with her supervisors regarding her poor attendance. Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 19; Pl.’s Stmt. ¶ 19; Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. 2 (Singleton Dep.) at 7; Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. 1 (Koukos Dep.) at 61:7-62:3; Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J., Ex 5 (Decís, of Messrs. James French and Charles Johnson) at ¶ 3,1. Ms. Ghu, on the other hand, had a reputation for arriving for work on time everyday despite her lengthy commute from Richmond, Virginia. Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 21; PL’s Stmt. ¶21. Given these two credible, legitimately non-discriminatory factors identified by the Postal Service, Plaintiff now must seize the “opportunity to discredit the employer’s explanation,” Aka, 156 F.3d at 1288, by demonstrating that the proffered reasons are a mere pretext for discrimination, see Paquin, 119 F.3d at 26-27. As always, Plaintiff retains the “ultimate burden of persuading the court that she has been the victim of intentional discrimination.” Burdine, 450 U.S. at 256, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207. At this point, a court reviewing summary judgment looks to whether a reasonable jury could infer intentional discrimination or retaliation from all the evidence, including (1) the plaintiffs prima facie case; (2) any evidence the plaintiff presents to attack the employer’s proffered explanation for its action; and (3) any further evidence of discrimination that may be available to the plaintiff (such as independent evidence of discriminatory statements or attitudes on the part of the employer). Carter v. George Washington Univ., 387 F.3d 872, 878 (D.C.Cir.2004) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). In attempting to show that the Postal Service’s articulated reasons for her non-selection are pretextual, Plaintiff candidly admits that she did not hear anyone in the Department’s management indicate that they wanted someone younger than her for the permanent EAS-21 position. Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 16; PL’s Stmt. ¶ 16; Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. 2 (Singleton Dep.) at 87. However, Plaintiff seeks to undermine each of the Postal Service’s proffered justifications. First, she attempts to undermine Ms. Ghu’s qualifications by stressing that she “had experience in training, employee development, and curriculum longer than Ms. Ghu had been with the [PJostal [Sjervice,” she “had been detailed into this very same position prior to not being selected for the permanent position,” and “[ajfter Ms. Ghu was placed in the position, she constantly sought help from the plaintiff and she was told by Mr. Koukos to help her.” PL’s Stmt. ¶ 14. Two central problems belie Plaintiffs assertions of superior qualifications. First, contrary to Plaintiffs overinflated claims, the evidence clearly shows that Plaintiff was essentially a secretary seeking to become a training specialist. Plaintiff never developed training materials herself, even when she was temporarily assigned to a Training Specialist function. See Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. 2 (Singleton Dep.) at 76 (Plaintiff admits this failure, and while she maintained that she “was helping to develop them by revising some work,” she concedes that her help amounted to secretarial work — typing “[sjomeone else’s edits”). While Plaintiff stresses that she had four years of experience in the Employment Development Department, this experience was as a level EAS-9 secretary “handling administrative duties and assisting team leaders in the department.” Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 3; PL’s Stmt. ¶ 3. Second, assuming the truth of Plaintiffs vague, generalized assertion that Ms. Ghu sought some type of assistance from her, the simple fact that Ms. Ghu sought help from Plaintiff is not indicative of her inferior qualifications. Rather, coming from an outside department, it is certainly logical that Ms. Ghu would turn to the individual who had just finished a temporary two-month assignment in the position. Moreover, Plaintiff does not indicate the nature of the request for assistance— whether logistical, substantive, or otherwise. Indeed, Plaintiff does not contest Ms. Ghu’s superior educational background. Second, in addition to her attempt to undermine Ms. Ghu’s qualifications, Plaintiff contends that criticisms about her attendance are not supported by the record. First, Plaintiff asserts that Plaintiffs attendance records for the time period that she was temporarily detailed to the EAS-21 position — January 2001 through early March 2001 — show that she was not at work for only three (3) days, and that each of these absences had been pre-approved by Mr. Koukos. Def.’s Opp’n at 13 (citing Def.’s Opp’n, Ex. 2 (Koukos Dep.) at JO-SS). However, the evidence cited to by Plaintiff is only of limited value; it shows only that she was entirely absent for three (3) days during a two-month span, but it does not reveal either (1) how many times she was fully absent over the entire course of her employment with the Department, or (2) how many times she was late for work during either that two-month span or her entire tenure. Indeed, tardiness rather than absenteeism appears to have been the major complaint against Plaintiff by her superiors. See Pl.’s Opp’n, Ex. 2 (Koukos Dep.) at 56:5-10 (indicating that “the problem with her attendance during this specific period was not so much that [Plaintiff] was out all day but that she arrived at work late”). Second, Plaintiff contends that, prior to her interview with Mr. Koukos for the EAS-21 position, “Koukos never had discussions with the plaintiff about her attendance.” Pl.’s Opp’n at 13 (citing PL’s Opp’n, Ex. 1 (Singleton Dep.) at 69:13-19 (Plaintiff states that she was called into Mr. Koukos’s office in March 2001 after her non-selection and was told “[h]e would have given me the job, but he didn’t give it to me because of my attendance ... that’s the first time he mentioned my attendance”)). Plaintiffs only evidence supporting this claim is her own unsubstantiated deposition testimony, which is quite equivocal on the matter. See PL’s Opp’n, Ex. 1 (Singleton Dep.) at 69:21-22 (when asked, “The first time he ever mentioned your attendance,” Plaintiff answered, “With this job,” making it unclear whether she was referring to only her limited two-month temporary detail in the EAS-21 position or her entire tenure in the Department) (emphasis added). In contrast, Plaintiffs unsupported claim is contradicted by the memories of three other individuals. See PL’s Opp’n, Ex. 2 (Koukos Dep.) at 48:2-6; Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. 1 (Koukos Dep.) at 61:7-62:3 (noting that he discussed orally Plaintiffs tardiness problems with her “[ejvery week, a couple of times a week” for “[a] good part of the detail”); Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. Ex 5 (Decís, of Messrs. James French and Charles Johnson) at ¶ 3, 1 (noting that “[f]rom January 2001 through March 2003,” Plaintiffs “supervisors had several conversations with her regarding her poor attendance”). Even accepting Plaintiffs version of the conversations regarding her tardiness, the fact that Plaintiff admits that Mr. Koukos discussed her attendance problems during the' initial conversation with Plaintiff regarding her non-selection — prior to any EEO complaint filed by Plaintiff — supports an inference that Mr. Koukos’s citation to “attendance issues” is not pretextual. Upon a review, the Court concludes that a reasonable fact-finder could not conclude that the Postal Service’s two articulated, non-discriminatory reasons behind its non-selection of Plaintiff are pre-textual. Rather, Plaintiffs claim of non-selection due to age discrimination is legally without merit. Importantly, a “[plaintiff cannot establish pretext simply based on her own subjective assessment of her own performance, for plaintiffs perception of herself, and of her work performance, is not relevant. It is the perception of the decisionmaker which is relevant.” Waterhouse v. Dist. of Columbia, 124 F.Supp.2d 1, 7 (D.D.C.2000) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted), aff'd, 298 F.3d 989 (D.C.Cir.2002). Indeed, the issue in a non-selection case is not the correctness of the decision-maker’s reasons, but rather whether he or she honestly believes them. See Fischbach, 86 F.3d at 1182 (citing cases). While Defendant has never contested that Plaintiff was qualified in the abstract to EAS-21 position, see Def.’s Mot. for Summ. J. at 7, Plaintiff has not presented sufficient evidence or argument to undermine the Postal Service’s claims that “superior education and intellect” and “attendance issues” were at the heart of Plaintiffs non-selection. Indeed, Plaintiff has presented virtually no evidence outside of her own self-serving statements and speculation, and such a paucity of evidence is insufficient to establish pretext. See, e.g., Hastie v. Potter, Civ. No. 00-5423, 2001 WL 793715, at *1 (D.C.Cir. June 28, 2001) (finding no genuine issue of material fact where the sole evidence plaintiff provided was “her own self-serving and conclusory statement”); Saunders v. DiMario, Civ. No. 97-1002, 1998 WL 525798, at *4 (D.D.C. Aug.14, 1998) (“Plaintiff has otherwise offered the type of self-serving allegations that are simply insufficient to establish pretext.”). Moreover, the D.C. Circuit has explained that discrimination will not be inferred absent a showing that plaintiffs qualifications were far superior to the successful candidate’s. Aka, 156 F.3d at 1296 (emphasis added). If a factfinder can conclude that a reasonable employer would have found the plaintiff to be significantly better qualified for the job, but this employer did not, the factfinder can legitimately infer that the employer consciously selected a less-qualified candidate — something that employers do not usually do, unless some other strong consideration, such as discrimination, enters into the picture. Id. at 1294 (emphasis added); see also Horvath v. Thompson, 329 F.Supp.2d 1, 7 (D.D.C.2004) (the plaintiffs qualifications must be “far superior to the successful candidates’s”); Tolson v. James, 315 F.Supp.2d 110, 116 (D.D.C.2004) (same); cf. Edwards v. Principi, 80 Fed.Appx. 950, 952 (5th Cir.2003) (to show pretext, “a plaintiff [must] show a difference in his qualifications superior to that of the person selected so apparent as to virtually jump off the page and slap us in the face”). In Stewart v. Ashcroft, 352 F.3d 422 (D.C.Cir.2003), the D.C. Circuit reinforced the maxim that “fine distinctions” between applicants were not sufficient to raise a jury question. Id. at 430. [Plaintiffl’s pointing to differences in qualifications that mere indicate a ‘close call’ does not get him beyond summary judgment. This Court will not reexamine governmental promotion decisions where it appears the Government was faced with a difficult decision between two qualified candidates, particularly where there is no other evidence that [age] played a part in the decision. Id. Here, Plaintiff has not presented evidence indicating that she was a “far superior candidate” for the EAS-21 Training Specialist when compared with Ms. Ghu. Ms. Ghu was a college-educated employee with a degree in finance who had worked for the Postal Service for roughly four years and had a track record of dependable attendance. Plaintiff, while a longtime employee of the Postal Service, was not college-educated and had basically performed as a secretary handling administrative matters; her only advantage over Ms. Ghu was her two-month-long temporary detail to the position, where she drafted no new training materials and handled no budgetary matters. At most, Plaintiffs challenge amounts to nothing but her subjective “quibbling about qualifications” that this Court has rejected on a consistent basis. See, e.g., Buggs v. Powell, 293 F.Supp.2d 135, 144 (D.D.C.2003); Choates v. Powell, 265 F.Supp.2d 81, 95 (D.D.C.2003); Vasilevsky v. Reno, 31 F.Supp.2d 143, 150 (D.D.C.1998). As such, summary judgment in favor of the Postal Service on Count I of Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint is appropriate. B. Counts II and III — Retaliation and Retaliatory Hostile Work Environment Count II and III of Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint allege that after Plaintiff filed a charge of age discrimination against the Postal Service with EEO Compliance and Appeals on March 12, 2001, First Am. Compl. ¶ 11, the Postal Service subjected Plaintiff to both repeated retaliation and a retaliatory hostile work environment — as evident in nine separate incidents. See supra Section 11(B) (listing the nine examples cited to by Plaintiff). Two important considerations doom Counts II and III of Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint, and necessitate summary judgment in favor of the Postal Service: (1) Plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies regarding these claims, as required; and (2) Plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case of either retaliation or a retaliatory hostile work environment. 1. Failure to Exhaust Importantly, the EEOC “has established detailed procedures for the administrative resolution of discrimination complaints, including a series of time limits for seeking informal adjustment of complaints, filing formal charges, and appealing agency decisions to the Commission.” Bowden v. United States, 106 F.3d 433, 437 (D.C.Cir.1997). Counts II and III of Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint merit dismissal because Plaintiff has failed to comply with two separate exhaustion requirements, and has failed to pursue the proper administrative remedies to her claims of retaliation and hostile work environment. First, before filing suit under the ADEA, a putative plaintiff must exhaust her administrative remedies by filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC within 180 days of the alleged discriminatory incident. 29 U.S.C. § 626(d)(1); see also Washington v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 160 F.3d 750, 752 (D.C.Cir.1998) (stating that “[b]efore suing under the ADEA[,] ... an aggrieved party must exhaust his administrative remedies by filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC”). The “charge” requirement mandates the filing of a written statement identifying the potential defendant and generally describing the alleged discriminatory incident. H.R.Rep. No. 95-950, at 12 (1978), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin. News 528, 534. The need for a timely, clear charge to be filed with the EEOC is essential, as the D.C. Circuit has emphasized: “Allowing a complaint to encompass allegations outside the ambit of the predicate EEOC charge would circumvent the EEOC’s investigatory and conciliatory role, as well as deprive the charged party of notice of the charge, as surely as would an initial failure to file a timely EEOC charge.” Marshall v. Fed. Express Corp., 130 F.3d 1095, 1098 (D.C.Cir.1997). Second, under 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105, “aggrieved” employees or applicants for employment who allege that they have been discriminated against must first consult an agency EEO counselor before filing a complaint of discrimination and must do so within forty-five (45) days of the “matter alleged to be discriminatory or, in the case of a personnel action, within 45 days of the effective date of the action.” Prior v. Potter, 296 F.Supp.2d 1031, 1035 (E.D.Mo.2003) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105 in the context of the ADEA). Compliance with these procedures and time limits is mandatory. “Complainants must timely exhaust these administrative remedies before bringing their claims to court.” Bowden v. United States, 106 F.3d 433, 437 (D.C.Cir.1997); Bayer v. Dep’t of Treasury, 956 F.2d 330, 332 (D.C.Cir.1992); Williams v. Munoz, 106 F.Supp.2d 40, 42 (D.D.C.2000) (“timely administrative charge is a prerequisite to initiation of a Title VII action”). “Because untimely exhaustion of administrative remedies is an affirmative defense, the defendant bears the responsibility of pleading and proving it.” Id. at 437 (citing Brown v. Marsh, 777 F.2d 8, 13 (D.C.Cir.1985)); see also Irwin v. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89, 95-96, 111 S.Ct. 453, 112 L.Ed.2d 435 (1990). Importantly, the administrative deadlines imposed by this scheme are not jurisdictional in nature: “they function like a statute of limitations and like a statute of limitations, are subject to waiver, estoppel, and equitable tolling.” Marsh, 777 F.2d at 14 (citations omitted). Nevertheless, it is clear that dismissal results when a plaintiff fails to exhaust administrative remedies. See Rann v. Chao, 346 F.3d 192, 194-95 (D.C.Cir.2003) (affirming the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs ADEA claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies); Mianegaz v. Hyatt Corp., 319 F.Supp.2d 13, 17-18 (D.D.C.2004) (dismissing ADEA claim for failure to exhaust). In this case, despite knowledge of her administrative exhaustion requirements and despite the fact that she had previously met those requirements (in her March 2001 non-selection complaint), Plaintiff admittedly failed to seek EEO counseling for any of the conduct that she alleges constituted either (1) an adverse action relating to her prior EEO complaint (for the March 2001 EAS-21 non-selection) (Count II), or (2) a hostile work environment related either to her prior EEO complaint or to her age (Count III). See Def.’s Reply, Ex. 1 (Singleton Dep.) at 119:13-16 (“I should have, but I had this going. I didn’t want to, like, beat a dead horse, you know.”); accord