Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM OPINION COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY, District Judge. Plaintiff Sidney L. Walker (“Walker”), an African-American male who was formerly employed at the Navy Public Works Center (“NPWC”) in Washington, D.C., filed this suit against Defendant Gordon R. England in his official capacity as Secretary of the Navy, alleging various claims of employment discrimination and retaliation in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. This is not the first suit between these parties. In the course of his employment at NPWC, Walker filed numerous administrative complaints and three prior lawsuits alleging various discriminatory employment actions, all of which were settled by the parties in May 2000. The instant lawsuit involves claims arising after the parties’ settlement. Following the Court’s Order and Memorandum Opinion granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss in this case, four claims remain: (1) discrimination and retaliation based on Walker’s non-selection for a Mechanical Engineering Technician position; (2) retaliation based on Walker’s supervisors having denied him overtime work; (3) retaliation based on the rejection of Walker’s application to a Leadership Development Initiative Program; and (4) retaliation based on Walker’s non-selection for an Electronic Industrial Controls Mechanic Supervisor position. Defendant has filed a[54] Motion for Summary Judgment on the four remaining claims, which Walker has opposed. After thoroughly reviewing all of the parties’ submissions, including the attachments thereto, applicable case law and statutory authority, and the entire record of the case as a whole, the Court shall GRANT-IN-PART Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Walker’s retaliation claims based on the Leadership Development Initiative Program and non-selection for an Electronic Industrial Controls Mechanic Supervisor position (claims 3 and 4 above), and DENY-IN-PART Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Walker’s discrimination and retaliation claim based on his non-selection for a Mechanical Engineering Technician position and retaliation claim based on Walker’s supervisors having denied him overtime work (claims 1 and 2 above), for the reasons that follow. I. BACKGROUND A. Factual Background Walker began his employment with NPWC in 1991. Pl.’s Stmt. ¶ 2(a). He filed his first EEO complaint against Defendant in 1993, alleging that he was not selected for two positions to which he had applied because of racial discrimination. Id. 1! 2(b). These allegations were heard by an Administrative Law Judge who, in 1995, determined that Defendant had racially discriminated against Walker by not selecting him for one of the two positions. Id. ¶ 2(c). On December 22, 1995, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy issued a final agency decision accepting the conclusions of the Administrative Law Judge and agreeing to certain “make whole” relief that included a promotion to a position that was substantially similar to the one that Walker was discriminatorily denied. Id. ¶ 2(d); Pl.’s Opp’n, Ex. 4 at 2 (12/22/95 Letter from D. Meletike to S. Walker). Defendant failed to place Walker in a substantially similar position and took other actions that Walker alleged were discriminatory and retaliatory. PL’s Stmt. ¶¶ 2(e), 2(f). These actions led Walker to file three separate lawsuits in this Court. Id. ¶ 2(g). On September 10, 1998, Judge Harold H. Greene held a hearing and issued an order finding that “the Secretary has failed to promote Mr. Walker to a position that is substantially similar to the position he was denied [and] the Secretary has failed to remedy the Navy’s discrimination against Mr. Walker.” Pl.’s Opp’n, Ex. 5 at 1-2 (9/10/98 Order). Judge Greene ordered the Commanding Officer of NPWC to place Walker “in an employment position that is substantially similar to the Maintenance Supervisor position as it existed at the time of the discrimina,tion,” and further ordered the Secretary to “provide [the] Court with the name of the Commanding Officer responsible for implementing and ensuring compliance with this Order.” Id. at 2. Judge Greene’s hearing and order gave rise to an article in the Washington Post titled “Navy Accused of Not Obeying Federal Order.” PL’s Opp’n, Ex. 6 at 1 (12/11/98 Washington Post Article). The article featured a picture of Walker and a description of how Judge Greene “excoriated the Navy for failing to follow [the] Equal Employment Opportunities Commission order to give [Walker] a job equal to the one that he was illegally denied in 1993.” Id. The article also described how Judge Greene “denounced the agency’s behavior as ‘an outrage,’ ” and how he “demanded that the Navy provide him with the name of the officer responsible for implementing the EEOC order ‘so [he] know[s] whom to put in jail.’ ” Id. After subsequent court proceedings related to Walker’s lawsuits, the parties reached a court-approved monetary settlement on May 12, 2000. Id. ¶ 12(i). Walker’s discrimination complaints against Defendant became known to many of the persons employed at NPWC, in large measure because of the Washington Post article describing Judge Green’s hearing and order. Id. ¶ 12(j). All twelve individuals working at NPWC who were deposed by Walker in this case testified that they had knowledge of Walker’s complaints against Defendant or the Washington Post article, or both. Id. Several of the persons employed in the NPWC Maintenance Department even submitted declarations stating that Walker’s discrimination complaints against Defendant were “a matter of common knowledge in the workplace.” Pl.’s Opp’n, Ex. 10, ¶ 6 (Decl. of B. Pickens); id., Ex. 11 ¶ 4 (Decl. of B. Chase) (same); id., Ex. 12 ¶ 4 (Decl. of F. Young) (same). Against this backdrop, the Court sets forth the specific facts pertaining to each of Walker’s four remaining claims. 1.Non-Selection for Mechanical Engineering Technician Position On May 8, 2001, Theron Houston, the Supervisory General Engineer, and John Verde, the Chief Engineer, approved a position description for a GS-11 Mechanical Engineering Technician position. Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 3; Pl.’s Resp. Stmt. ¶ 3; Def.’s Mot., Ex. 12 at 113 (5/8/01 Position Description). Because a lengthy description of the duties, responsibilities, and knowledge required for a GS-12 Mechanical Engineering Technician position already existed, Houston and Verde created a “Statement of Differences” to accompany the position description, explaining that the GS-11 position was “similar” to the GS-12 position but “requires more supervision and guidance” because it is a “training position.” Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 3 n. 1; Pl.’s Resp. Stmt. ¶ 3; Def.’s Mot., Ex. 12 at 114 (Statement of Differences). Verde acted as the selecting official for the new position, and he designated David Capozolli, the Assistant Deputy Chief Engineer, as the evaluating official. Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 6. In the course of advertising the position and selecting applicants, Capozolli and Verde decided to hire two applicants for the position at either the GS-11 or GS-12 level, or one of each. See Def.’s Mot., Ex. 6 at 18:6-18:9 (Depo. Tr. of D. Capo-zolli) (“Q: ... How many positions were [g]oing to be filled with this? A: We actually had enough work to justify two positions.”); id. at 19:5-19:10 (“Q: Was there a decision made prior to the selection about whether the positions were going to be filled by like two GS-lls or two GS-12s or one of each or did it just depend on the qualifications? A: It just depended on the qualifications.”). On May 29, 2001, NPWC posted the vacancy announcement, titled “Mechanical Engineering Technician (HVAC).” Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 7. The vacancy announcement described the duties of the position, including (among others) the ability to monitor and control “Heating and Air Conditioning and Ventilation systems” (ie., HVAC) and supervising and tracking “HVAC preventative maintenance checks.” Def.’s Mot., Ex. 12 at 123 (5/29/01 Vacancy Announcement). According to the vacancy announcement, applicants would be ranked according to their knowledge, skills, and abilities corresponding to the following six evaluation criteria: 1. Knowledge of HVAC systems with direct digital control technology as used on military installations 2. Ability to manage two or more HVAC projects simultaneously 3. Knowledge of engineering contract administration 4. Knowledge of construction material and cost estimating practice 5. Knowledge of specification writing practices 6. Ability to communicate orally and in writing at all levels Id. Walker applied for the Mechanical Engineer Technician Position along with six other individuals. Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 9. All but one person were deemed eligible for the position. Id. Capozolli reviewed the eligible candidates using a crediting plan, assigning each applicant between one and four points for each of the six evaluation criteria (the higher the point total, the more qualified the candidate). Id. ¶ 10. See also Def.’s Mot., Ex. 12 at 237-49 (Mechanical Engineering Technician Crediting Plan). Three applicants, including William Schank, tied for the highest score of 18 points. Def.’s Mot., Ex. 12 at 250 (7/10/01 Scoring Sheet). George Alten-bach had next highest score with 16 points. Id. Ross Fife received 15 points and Walker received 13 points. Id. Capozolli recommended to Verde that he select Schank as a GS-12 technician, see Pl.’s Opp’n, Ex. 33 at 1 (8/28/01 GS-12 Ranking Sheet), and select Altenbach as a GS-11 technician, id., Ex. 32 at 1 (8/28/01 GS-11 Scoring Sheet). Def.’s Stmt. ¶¶ 34, 36. Verde agreed with Capozolli’s recommendations and selected Altenbach and Schank, two white males, for the two available positions. Id. ¶ 39. As part of his evaluation process, Capo-zolli spoke with each of the applicants by phone or in person. Def.’s Mot., Ex. 6 at 45:14-46:5 (Depo. Tr. of D. Capozolli) (“... I remember evaluating the resumes and making phone calls ... I don’t know if the phone calls are really interviews or if they were just trying to get some questions to answer some of the things that weren’t kind of clear on the resumes”); id. at 51:1— 51:13 (“since I knew [some of] them I might have talked to them personally, like had a face-to-face interview with them ... I think I talked to two on the phone and one came by or one on the phone and two came by, I can’t remember. But they were in and out during that period while we were interviewing, I do remember that”). Defendant’s Merit Promotion Procedures Manual authorizes a selecting official, such as Capozolli, to “interview none, any, or all of the certified candidates^] but equity should be observed.” Pl.’s Opp’n, Ex. 25 at 24 (12/28/93 Merit Promotion Procedures Manual). The facts and circumstances associated with Capozolli’s interviews are a source of substantial dispute between the parties. Capozolli claims that he interviewed Walker by phone. Pl.’s Opp’n, Ex. 17 at 49:5^49:12 (Depo. Tr. of Capozolli) (“Q: When you say you called the applicants to ask them questions for clarification, did you ask Mr. Walker any questions ... A: I can’t remember. I’m sure I asked him questions, I talked to him. I asked him questions about his resume, but I can’t honestly recall what conversation we had”). Walker denies that Capozolli ever interviewed him: I received a call about the position from David Capozolli who asked if I was still interested in the position and said that I had an impressive resume and he would be calling me back. However, there was never any substantive discussion or return call. I was never interviewed in person or over the telephone by Capo-zolli. See PL’s Opp’n, Ex. 1 ¶ 15 (Affid. of S. Walker). Capozolli possesses no recollection of what he believes he may have discussed with Walker. See PL’s Opp’n, Ex. 17 at 67:15-67:18 (“Q: So sitting here now you can’t remember what you may have asked Sidney Walker about his application? A: No. I can’t remember that.”). Beyond their threshold dispute as to whether Capozolli interviewed Walker, there is conflicting evidence in the record concerning the significance of the interviews. Capozolli testified that he might have ranked the candidates before interviewing them. Id. at 46:1-46: 5 (Depo. Tr. of D. Capozolli) (“I can’t remember if I ranked them and then called them or called them and then sat down and went through the resumes and ranked them.”). There is other evidence in the record, however, suggesting that Capozolli took the interviews into account during his evaluation of the applicants. In particular, the sixth evaluation criteria required evaluation of a candidate’s ability to communicate orally. See Def.’s Mot., Ex. 12 at 123 (5/29/01 Vacancy Announcement). Capo-zolli awarded Schank and Altenbach 3 points each for criteria six because they “spoke clearly during [their] telephone conversation^.” Id., Ex. 16 ¶¶ 6, 7 (Deck of D. Capozolli). With respect to Walker’s communication abilities, Capozolli awarded Walker 2 points because he “didn’t speak very clearly” and was “just kind of hard to understand.” Id., Ex. 6 at 96:3-96:9 (Depo. Tr. of D. Capozolli). Capozolli also recalls that he “had to ask [Walker] to repeat his statements several times,” even though he testified that he has no recollection of what he and Walker discussed, including (apparently) the statements that were allegedly repeated several times. Id., Ex. 16 ¶ 9 (Decl. of D. Capozolli). Capozolli also testified that his conversations with the applicants were not really interviews because they were simply his way of clarifying aspects of their resumes and applications. See Pl.’s Opp’n, Ex. 17 at 45:18-45:21 (Depo. Tr. of Capozolli) (“I don’t know if the phone calls are really interviews or if they were just trying to get some questions to answer some of the things that weren’t kind of clear on the resumes”). There is substantial evidence in the record, however, that such clarifications (or lack thereof) were material to Capozolli’s scoring. For example, Capo-zolli conceded that Walker’s application “contained some well-written narratives regarding his experiences,” but he also stated that portions of Walker’s application were unclear. See, e.g., Def.’s Mot., Ex. 16 ¶ 9 (Deck of D. Capozolli) (“a significant portion of [Walker’s] application consisted of long lists or [sic] experiences and he did not provide any detail our [sic] explain how they applied to the position”). This lack of clarity apparently affected Capozolli’s scoring of the first and second evaluation criteria (relating to knowledge of HVAC systems and the ability to manage two or more HVAC projects simultaneously). See Def.’s Mot., Ex. 12 at 123 (5/29/01 Vacancy Announcement). Altenbach received scores of 4 and 3 on criteria one and two, respectively, whereas Walker received scores of 2 and 2, respectively. See Ph’s Opp’n, Ex. 31 (7/10/01 Scoring Sheet). Walker asserts that he should have received higher scores for these two evaluation criteria because his application contained a lengthy list of HVAC equipment and controls about which he was knowledgeable, and the fact that he supervised a multi-trade department, including six HVAC mechanics, as a Maintenance Supervisor for the NPWC and worked with heating and ventilation systems for the Army Corps of Engineers. Pb’s Stmt. ¶ l(j). Defendant asserts that Walker’s description of his HVAC-related knowledge and experience was not clear from his resume. See Def.’s Resp. Stmt. ¶ l(j). Even if Capozolli’s interviews were meant only to clarify the qualifications of the applicants, an alleged failure to interview Walker may have had a substantial effect on his HVAC-related scores. The Court also notes that Defendant’s explanation for why Walker’s application was unclear is also subject to dispute. Defendant asserts that Walker’s application contained “grammatical errors” (which it does not identify) and “the description of his knowledge, skills, and abilities did not correspond to the evaluation factors in the vacancy announcement.” Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 32. Walker disputes that his application contained any more grammatical errors than any of the other applications for the position. See PL’s Resp. Stmt. ¶ 32. Walker also disputes that the organization of his application was problematic because Schank’s application was not organized to correspond to the six evaluation criteria, and Schank tied two others for the highest score. Id. Paradoxically, Capozolli described Schank’s application as “very organized.” Def.’s Mot., Ex. 16 ¶ 7 (Decl. of D. Capozolli). Moreover, Walker explains that “there is no requirement that an applicant address each of the [evaluation criteria] ... individually,” a point that Defendant does not dispute. See Pl.’s Resp. Stmt. ¶ 32. In terms of Capozolli’s knowledge of the applicants, he claimed that he did not know Walker’s race during the evaluation process. Id., Ex. 12 at 89 (EEO Decl. of D. Capozolli). There is substantial evidence to the contrary. During Capozolli’s deposition in this ease, he testified that when he spoke to Walker on the telephone he “could tell from his [Walker’s] voice that he was a black guy.” Id., Ex. 17 at 54:13-54:15 (Decl. of D. Capozolli). Capo-zolli also acknowledged reading the 1998 Washington Post article that described Walker’s allegations of race discrimination, even though he denied recalling the picture of Walker in the article. See PL’s Opp’n, Ex. 17 at 38:3-38:15 (“... I seem to recall an article, I don’t seem to recall a picture in the article. Whether I read it kind of like this [a printed copy], as an email or whether I just picked up the paper and read it, I can’t even remember anymore”). Finally, the Court notes that the parties’ briefs focus on two other factual disputes that, unlike the ones above, are not material to disposition of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment. First, Walker repeatedly emphasizes that Capozolli’s focus on HVAC knowledge when ranking the candidates was inappropriate because the Statement of Differences did not mention HVAC knowledge and the position description for the GS-12 technician position did not specifically reference knowledge of HVAC systems in its “knowledge required” section. See, e.g., PL’s Resp. Stmt. ¶ 10. Walker’s emphasis on this narrow point is misleading. There is no dispute that HVAC knowledge was identified in the “major duties and responsibilities” portion of the GS-12 position description. See Def.’s Mot., Ex. 12 at 116-121 (GS-12 Mechanical Engineer Technician Position Description) (explaining that the position requires the employee to “[m]onitor [] and control [] Hearing and Air Conditioning and Ventilation (HVAC) systems utilizing direct digital control technology”). There is similarly no dispute that the vacancy announcement emphasized that HVAC knowledge was required for the position by (1) titling the position “Mechanical Engineering Technician (HVAC),” (2) describing HVAC activities in the “duties of this position” section, and (3) explaining that two of the six criteria as to which applicants would be ranked would pertain to their knowledge and abilities related to HVAC systems and projects. Id. at 123 (5/29/01 Vacancy Announcement). Thus, consideration of HVAC knowledge was fully disclosed to putative applicants as an appropriate area of evaluation. Second, Walker argues that Capozolli improperly selected Schank as a “non-competitive eligible” candidate, see Pl.’s Opp’n, Ex. 33 (8/21/01 GS-12 Ranking Sheet), a designation that allows an evaluator to select a candidate for one of several reasons that fall outside the ordinary merit promotion plan process. See 5 C.F.R. § 335.103. Walker claims that Schank’s designation as a non-competitive eligible was in error because “he did not qualify as a non-competitive candidate under the requirements of [D]efendant’s Merit Promotion Program and OPM regulations.” PL’s Stmt. ¶ 1(g) (citations omitted). Walker’s assertion is both immaterial and unfounded. Schank was ranked along with all of the other candidates and received a total of 18 points. Thus, whether he was selected as a competitive or noncompetitive eligible candidate is immaterial to whether he was properly selected instead of Walker, as it would have been appropriate to select him ahead of Walker in either scenario. Furthermore, Walker’s assertion is based on a report prepared by David C. Knudsen, a personnel management consultant, who reviewed the scoring sheets used by Capozolli and concluded that Schank should not have been considered a non-competitive candidate because his application did not show experience at the “grade 12 level,” citing 5 C.F.R. 335.103. See Pl.’s Opp’n, Ex. 26 at 1 (3/9/05 Statement of Opinions). Knudsen failed to consider (or even identify) Schank’s experience, listed in his application, at the WS-12 level (while working as a Project Test Director at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard) and WG-13 level (while working as a Mechanical Inspector at the same location). See Def.’s Mot., Ex. 12 at 141, 143 (W. Schank Application). Knudsen provides no explanation for why this experience would not allow Capozolli to appropriately designate Schank as a noncompetitive eligible candidate under 5 C.F.R. 335.103. 2. Overtime Employees at NPWC earn overtime pay for overtime work. Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 49. NPWC’s overtime policy instructs that overtime must be “limited to urgent customer readiness, emergencies, safeguarding life and property, and an incidence where savings can be clearly demonstrated by the use of overtime.” Id. ¶ 50. The collective bargaining agreement with the Washington Area Metal Trades Council prohibits the assignment of overtime to supervisors for work normally performed by union members if those employees are available. Id. Although the parties agree that these policy instructions exist, they have vastly different views as to whether and to what extent these policies have been followed. Walker’s supervisors, Albert Loften and Joseph Compofelice, testified that approval of overtime for supervisors was not permitted unless their supervision was necessary “(1) for large projects, such as the ‘Specifics’ projects performed by Code 580; (2) it was required or justified by the customer; or (3) if the supervisor directly performed the work.” Id. ¶ 51. Although Compofelice testified that Defendant was approved to work overtime on one large project, Defendant contends that Walker was generally not assigned overtime because “[o]n the whole, [Walker’s] unit performed tasks that did not necessitate overtime for the supervisors.” Def.’s Stmt. ¶¶ 52, 53. In particular, Defendant asserts that V/alker’s unit performed “emergency and service tickets” for small projects, and that “the Agency’s customers would not authorize overtime for a supervisor’s presence.” Id. ¶ 53. In contrast, Defendant asserts that Code 580, a department that performed large projects, entailed a lot of supervisory overtime work. Id. ¶ 54. Walker has a much different view. First, he notes that his overtime work had to be approved by his supervisors, Loften or Compofelice, PL’s Stmt. ¶ 4(a), and that Loften testified that he was unfamiliar with the NPWC overtime policy instruction cited above. See Pl.’s Opp’n, Ex. 14 at 42:6-42:22 (Depo. Tr. of A. Loften) (“Q: Do you recognize this [instruction?] A: Not really. Q: You’ve never seen this [instruction] before? A: I can’t recall.”). Second, Walker explains that both Lof-ten and Compofelice were outwardly hostile toward him and other African Americans in general. Defendant does not dispute that Loften told Walker, prior to a reduction in workforce that resulted in Walker’s termination, that he was glad he wouldn’t have to see Walker anymore, that Walker shouldn’t have been a Maintenance Supervisor, that the only way he could get advances was through the court system, and that if it was up to Loften, Walker would be sent back to Mississippi. PL’s Stmt. ¶ 2(k); Def.’s Resp. Stmt. ¶ 2(k) (stating only that Loften made these statements after he no longer was supervising Walker). Defendant also does not dispute that Compofelice maintained a notebook that he used to document Walker’s use of leave (but no other employees), even though Walker never exceeded his annual leave. Id. ¶ 2(1); Def.’s Resp. Stmt. ¶ 2(1) (stating this fact is irrelevant and/or does not constitute an adverse employment action). Walker also submitted declarations from other individuals who were employed in Walker’s Maintenance Department who observed Loften and Compofelice’s treatment of Walker. These employees stated that Loften and Compofelice would frequently give work assignments directly to Felix Mulder, a Work Leader who worked under Mr. Walker, rather than giving them to Mr. Walker to assign to his Work Leaders as should have been the case, and as was the practice with other supervisors. PL’s Opp’n, Ex. 8 ¶ 9 (Decl. of L. Gray). See also id., Ex. 9 ¶ 7 (Decl. of C. Long) (same); Ex. 10 ¶ 7 (Decl. of B. Pickens) (same); id., Ex. 11 ¶ 8 (Decl. of B. Chase) (same); id., Ex. 12 ¶ 7 (Decl. of F. Young) (same). Similarly, Loften would give “performance evaluation forms directly to Mr. Walker’s men instead of allowing Mr. Walker to meet with the men and give them their evaluations like the other supervisors did.” Id., Ex. 9 ¶ 8 (Decl. of C. Long). Loften and Compofelice would speak to Walker “in a condescending tone like he was a child,” id., Ex. 10 ¶ 6 (Decl. of C. Long), and “would frequently check on Mr. Walker’s whereabouts and the progress of his jobs, much more than they did for the other supervisors.” Id., Ex. 8 ¶ 8. They would also require “Walker to stay until the very end of the workday no matter how early he came in, while other supervisors were allowed to leave early.” Id. Regarding overtime work, Colie Long, a Work Leader in the North Zone of the NPWC Maintenance Department, stated that (“Walker’s men worked lots of overtime, [but] Mr. Loften and Mr. Compofel-ice generally would not allow him to work overtime”). These employees also explained that Loften and Compofelice generally treated African American employees in the Maintenance Department differently than white employees: I observed that black employees were disciplined for things that were ignored for white employees, and white employees were allowed to leave early, but not blacks ... [and] Loften [made] derogatory comments about blacks even though he himself is black. Id., Ex. 8 ¶ 7 (Decl. of L. Gray). I observed that blacks were treated differently than whites. For example, white employees would stand around outside the building talking and smoking and not only was nothing said to them, but Mr. Loften or Mr. Compofelice would sometimes be with them. However, when blacks would do that, Mr. Lof-ten or Mr, Compofelice would tell them to get back to work or they would call the supervisors of the black employees and tell them to get the black employees back to work. Id., Ex. 9 ¶ 4 (Decl. of C. Long). I observed that blacks were treated differently than whites. For example, black employees were disciplined for things that were ignored for white employees. Blacks were told not to have chairs in the ‘cages’ where we kept our tools, but whites were allowed to have them. Id., Ex. 11 ¶ 6 (Decl. of B. Chase). I observed that blacks were treated differently than whites. For example, white employees would stand around outside the [sic] on the loading dock talking and smoking and not only was nothing said to them, but Joe Compofel-ice, the assistant to North Zone Manager A1 Loften, would sometimes be out there smoking and talking with them. However, when blacks would do that, Mr. Compofelice would tell them to get back to work. Id., Ex. 12 ¶ 6 (Decl. of F. Young). With respect to Walker’s overtime claim specifically, there is substantial evidence in the record that conflicts with the explanation for why Walker was not approved for more overtime by Loften and Compofelice. For example, as reflected above, Compo-felice testified that he refused Walker’s overtime requests because Compofelice did not believe it was appropriate for a supervisor to perform the work of his employees. See PL’s Opp’n, Ex. 13 at 32:2-32:6 (Depo. Tr. of J. Compofelice) (“I told Mr. Loften I didn’t feel it was deem-able [sic] for a Supervisor to perform overtime when he had sufficient men to do the work.”). Loften agreed with him. Id. at 32:5-32:6. According to the overtime records for the period between August 18, 2003 and May-18, 2005, however, Compofelice himself had 351 hours of overtime. Id. These overtime hours included activities such as “snow removal,” “power wash planters,” and “replacing light fixtures.” Id. Two other maintenance supervisors, William Felix and Melvin Thomas, had 196 and 263 hours of overtime, respectively. Id. Defendant maintains that these other supervisors had different positions and responsibilities so they are not comparable to Walker. Def.’s Resp. Stmt. ¶ 4(c). Although Defendant also asserts that the collective bargaining agreement “mandated that supervisors not be assigned overtime work normally performed by the union members if they are available,” Id. ¶4^), Defendant also argues (in contradiction to itself) that Felix, a supervisor, appropriately billed overtime electrical work because “he performed direct work, not supervisory work.,” id. ¶ 4(h). Walker also explains that there was a “call-back” list for emergency service calls that constituted overtime work. See Pl.’s Stmt. ¶ 2(d). This list contained sub-lists of persons who were to be called depending on the nature of the job (e.g., HVAC, plumbing, electrical, etc.). See PL’s Opp’n, Ex. 42 (Call-Back List). The priority list for PIVAC problems included both Compo-felice and Loften, as well as persons who worked for Walker, but not Walker himself. Id. The lists for plumbing and medical gas problems also included Walker’s subordinates, but not Walker. Id. For electrical problems, however, the first name on the priority list was Felix, the supervisor of that department. Id. Defendant does not directly dispute these facts but suggests simply that Walker “was not excluded from the call back list.” Def.’s Resp. Stmt. ¶ 4(d). During Compofelice’s deposition in this case, he testified that Felix was listed as the first name on the call back list for electrical problems in his department because he lived close to the facility: Bill Felix, basically the only overtime he would get is on a call back, after hour calls because he was only like ten minutes from the place, everybody else lived either in Virginia, West Virginia, even a couple of [people] lived in Pennsylvania. PL’s Opp’n, Ex. 13 at 26:2-26:7 (Depo. Tr. of J. Compofelice). Although the record is unclear as to whether Compofelice knew where Walker was residing, Walker also lived in Maryland, and contends that it is “just as close as Felix.” PL’s Stmt. ¶ 4(f). See also PL’s Reply, Ex. 12 at 4:12-4:13 (Depo. Tr. of S. Walker) (stating that he resided in Gaithersburg, Maryland). In any event, as a result of the overtime approval practices of Loften and Compo-felice, Walker’s subordinates accumulated substantial overtime. For example, Felix Mulder billed 1,122 hours and Barry Var-nell had 830 hours, while during the same period Walker only billed 114 hours. PL’s Stmt. ¶ 4(g). Finally, certain employees were approved to perform operating room renovation overtime work, but Walker was not among them. Compofelice testified that this work was performed by the “structural shop” and its employees, and work involving Walker’s group could be performed during normal business hours. See PL’s Opp’n, Ex. 13 at 35:8-36:17 (Depo Tr. of J. Compofelice). However, Walker’s subordinates had a substantial number of overtime hours for the operating room renovations. PL’s Stmt. ¶ 4(h). Defendant maintains only that Walker “provides no evidence to support his assertion that he was entitled to receive overtime with respect to renovation work.” Def.’s Resp. Stmt. ¶ 4(h). 3.Leadership Development Initiative Program In early 2001, the Naval Facilities Engineering Command advertised a Leadership Development Initiative Program (“LDI Program”) designed to identify and provide for the development of incumbent and prospective executives, managers, and supervisors, to maintain and enhance their effectiveness; to ensure the availability of competent and skilled candidates to meet future staffing requirements; and to foster technology transfer and shared learning throughout the command. Pi’s Opp’n, Ex. 43 at 1 (2/6/2001 LDI Program Announcement); see also Pl.’s Opp’n, Ex. 44 at 7:5-7:7 (Depo. Tr. of L. Heckat-horn) (explaining that the purpose of the LDI program is “[t]o train new leaders”). Individuals who were interested in participating in the program could apply by submitting an application between February 13, 2001 through March 30, 2001. Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 41. The LDI Program Handbook explicitly stated that late or incomplete packages would not be considered. Id. ¶¶ 42, 43. See also PL’s Opp’n, Ex. 43 at B-3 (LDI Program Handbook) (“LATE OR INCOMPLETE PACKAGES WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED. APPLICATIONS MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE CLOSING DATE”) (emphasis in original). Each application had to include the following components to be considered complete: 1. Self-nomination form 2. Resume 3. Verification of Eligibility form 4. Supplemental information of no more than two single-sided typed pages 5. Defense Acquisition Workforce Improvement Act form 6.A copy of the most recent SF-50 Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 42. The individual who was responsible for overseeing the LDI application process during the 2001 application period was Leo Heckathorn. IcL ¶ 44. At the time he reviewed the LDI Program applications, Heckathorn did not know Walker’s race or have knowledge of his EEO-protected activity. See Def. Mot., Ex. 17 at 54 (EEO Affidavit of L. Heckathorn) (“At the time that I reviewed Mr. Walker’s application, I did not know that he had been involved in prior EEO activity” and “I did not know [Walker’s] ... race before I saw [his] application”); Id., Ex. 31 at 29:20-29:21 (Depo. Tr. of L. Heckathorn) (“Q: Did you know [Walker] then, at that time? A: At that time I didn’t know who he was.”). Walker submitted his application prior to the March 31, 2001 deadline, but failed to include a signed Verification of Eligibility form as was required for a complete application. Id. ¶¶ 45, 46. Having discovered Walker’s incomplete application, Hec-kathorn sought guidance from Clarence Wenzel, the individual who oversaw the application process during the previous year, as to whether he could accept Walker’s application. Id. ¶ 47. Wenzel informed Heckathorn that George Alten-bach’s application was denied the previous year because he failed to include a signed Verification of Eligibility form (the same form missing from Walker’s application). Id. Heckathorn also testified that Wenzel mentioned Walker’s previous EEO complaints toward the end of their conversation: Q: When you talked to Mr. Wenzel, did he ever mention anything about Mr. Walker’s discrimination complaints from the previous time? A: At the end of our conversation, just as I was walking out the door he says you know he’s had other problems and I said okay, well, that’s fine. The decision had already been made because of precedents that we were going to do this. Q: Did he use the word “problems”? * * * A: ... He might have said EEO, but I don’t remember exactly what he said. PL’s Opp’n, Ex. 44 at 32:5-32:18 (Depo. Tr. of L. Heckathorn). Wenzel described this conversation with Heckathorn in an EEO Affidavit and stated that Heckathorn did not tell him who the applicant was that they were discussing — a fact that was contradicted by Hec-kathorn’s deposition testimony. See Pl.’s Opp’n, Ex. 45 at 2 (EEO Affid. of C. Wenzel). Nevertheless, Wenzel also stated that “[i]t is an automatic reject if something is missing from the [LDI] package” and that “[he has] not extended the time to allow an applicant to obtain [a] signature on the verification [form]. There are no extensions.” Id. at 2-3. Wenzel also confirmed that “Mr. Altenbach was rejected that [sic] the same Administrative step. I did not see his application ... I do not waste my time on incomplete packages.” Id. Based on the guidance from Wenzel, and the explicit requirements contained in the LDI Program Handbook, Heckathorn sent Walker a letter on April 3, 2001, rejecting his LDI application because “[a]s part of the application the Verification of Eligibility must be complete. The Verification of Eligibility in your package is not signed by the HRO representative.” Def.’s Mot., Ex. 17 at 22 (4/3/01 Letter from L. Heckathorn to S. Walker). Walker does not dispute the foregoing facts, but asserts that his failure to submit a signed Verification of Eligibility form was not his fault. Walker brought the form to the Bethesda Human Resources Office on March 26, 2001, four days before the submission deadline. Pl.’s Stmt. ¶ 5(c). He gave the form to Frances Myers, an African American woman who was unaware of Walker’s EEO activity, who worked as a personnel assistant at the Bethesda Satellite Office of the Human Resources Office. Id. ¶ 5(c); PL’s Opp’n, Ex. 49 at 1 (EEO Affidavit of F. Myers). Although Walker makes the unsupported assertion that she “told [Walker] she would fax it to the HRO at the Washington Navy Yard for a signature,” the evidence in the record is that Ms. Myers faxed it to someone named Faith Richardson at a different human resources office and did not contact the office at the Navy Yard: I had spoken to Faith Richardson at HRSC on Nebraska Avenue and she said that she took care of the LDI program so I faxed Mr. Walker’s verification form to her ... I was trying to help them [sic] because I did not know who was handling the LDI verification for eligibility forms. I thought that Mr. Walker’s form had been filled out and given to Mr. Walker in time for the deadline for the LDI program. I did not call HRO-W at the Navy Yard. PL’s Opp’n, Ex. 49 at 2 (EEO Affid. of F. Myers). Walker states that he “checked back” on March 30, 2001, and “was told that everything was OK,” and that he did not learn until after the application submission deadline that his Verification of Eligibility form had not been signed. PL’s Stmt. ¶ 5(c). Walker emphasizes that “the Human Resources Offices were aware of [his] prior discrimination case,” and that one of his prior discrimination complaints against Defendant “involved the scoring of his application by Human Resources.” Pl.’s Stmt. ¶ 5(b). Finally, Walker proffers two additional facts that seem to undermine his claim of retaliation associated with the rejection of his LDI Program application. First, Walker explains that Larry Gray, Sr., another African American employee in the same department, was able to obtain a signed Verification of Eligibility form and was selected for the LDI program. Pl.’s Stmt. ¶ 5(d). Mr. Gray stated in an EEO affidavit that he noticed Walker’s form was unsigned and advised him that he “thought his paperwork [would] be rejected because he did not get his verification form signed.” Pl.’s Opp’n, Ex. 50 at 2-3 (EEO Affid. of L. Gray). Gray further stated that he was “persistent” in seeking to obtain the required signature while Walker “gave up” on Ms. Myers. Id. at 2. Second, Walker acknowledges that Altenbach had his application rejected the previous year because he also failed to obtain the necessary signature on his Verification of Eligibility form, but indicates that it “was due to his misunderstanding of the process, not because he had tried unsuccessfully to have [sic] signed like Walker did.” Pl.’s Stmt. ¶ 5(e). As Defendant points out in response, the reasons for why each individual failed to obtain the required signature were irrelevant to the rejection of their applications; both were treated the same regardless of the reasons for their incomplete applications. Def.’s Resp. Stmt. ¶ 5(e). 4. Reduction in Workforce/Non-Selection for Electronic Industrial Controls Mechanic Supervisor Position From 2000 to 2004, the Engineering Field Activity Chesapeake performed a Commercial Activity Study on NPWC. Def.’s Stmt. ¶ 60. One purpose of the study was to determine whether NPWC should convert its entire Maintenance Department to a private-sector contract. Id. The study concluded that NPWC should do so. Id. ¶ 61. As a result, on August 13, 2004, NPWC announced that it would abolish 334 positions using the federal government’s reduction-in-force (“RIF”) procedures. Id. Pursuant to these procedures, Walker was issued a RIF notice on November 29, 2004, indicating that he would be separated from the agency. Id. ¶ 68. Walker’s final retaliation claim in this case arises as a result of, but is unrelated to, the NPWC’s RIF. After receiving his RIF notice, Walker applied for the position of Electronic Industrial Controls Mechanic Supervisor in February or March 2005. Pl.’s Opp’n, Ex. 1 ¶ 28 (Affid. of S. Walker); id., Ex. 52 at 1-2 (Vacancy Announcement). Walker was one of six applicants who were initially considered unqualified for the position by Ms. Theresa Tiller, an employee working at the human resources office in Washington, D.C. See Def.’s Reply, Ex. 6 at 24 (3/11/05 Eligibility Register). Ms. Tiller called Walker to explain her determination, as is her usual practice, and she reversed her decision after Walker highlighted various portions of his resume that qualified him for consideration: My policy is to call disapproved applicants to let them know that I disapproved them. That gives them the opportunity to question the final result and in this case he [Walker] did bring up some issues. We discussed his application and he pointed out a few things in there that I was able to use to determine him to be basically qualified. Pl.’s Opp’n, Ex. 46 at 21:12-21:19 (Depo. Tr. of T. Tiller). As a result, Walker was evaluated along with four other candidates for the position. Def.’s Reply, Ex. 6 at 7 (Consolidated Rankings Sheet). The individuals who evaluated the candidates were David Capozolli (who had served as the evaluating official for the Mechanical Engineering Technician position), along with Dennis Walters. Id. at 6 (3/18/05 Evaluation Description). Capozol-li and Walters ranked the candidates separately and then combined their scores. Id. at 8 (Individual Scoring Sheet). John Presley received the highest score with 38 points and Walker received the lowest score with 30 points. Id. at 7 (Consolidated Rankings Sheet). Presley was selected for the position. Pl.’s Stmt. ¶ 7(c). Presley had been placed in a three to four-month temporary detail one year earlier for the same position, but Walker believes that Presley lacked other high voltage or supervisory experience. Id. ¶ (c). Walker asserts that “Presley’s temporary promotion as the sole basis to qualify him for selection violates [D]efendant’s Merit Promotion Program which prohibits the use of a temporary promotion for that purpose.” Id. ¶ 7(d). Problematically, Walker cites no support for the proposition that Capozolli and Walters viewed Presley’s temporary detail as his “sole” qualification. In any event, Walker does not assert that his qualifications were superior to the other four candidates. See Pl.’s Opp’n, generally. Capozolli testified that this supervisor position was most appropriate for someone who had extensive experience working with utilities: This position in Utilities is the senior person that understands utility systems, that understands the Boiler Plants, understands the Chiller Plants, the electrical systems, the water distribution systems, somebody that has had experience in Utilities for a long period of time [and] is most qualified to do this type of work. Pl.’s Opp’n, Ex. 17 at 88:14-88:20 (Depo. Tr. of D. Capozolli). As Walker concedes, Presley worked as a Utility Systems Operator for most of his career. See Pl.’s Stmt. ¶ 7(c). Capozolli did not believe Walker was qualified for the position based on his background. See PL’s Opp’n, Ex. 17 at 88:11-88:12 (Depo. Tr. of D. Capozolli). B. Procedural Background Walker filed his original Complaint on August 22, 2002. Defendant filed an Answer on November 13, 2002, along with a Motion to Dismiss. Following completion of the parties’ briefing, the Court issued an Order and Memorandum Opinion on May 24, 2004, which dismissed all of Walker’s claims against Defendant with the exception of his non-selection for the Mechanical Engineering Technician position (claim one), and Walker’s claim regarding the rejection of his application for the Leadership Development Initiative in 2001 (claim three). See [16] Mem. Op. at 1-12 (May 24, 2004). The Court set a schedule for discovery and other matters. See [17] Scheduling Order (May 24, 2004). On June 7, 2004, Walker timely filed a Motion to Amend his Complaint to add retaliation claims based on Defendant’s refusal to approve overtime time work for Walker (claim two), and the failure to provide Walker with a particular certification (a claim that has since become moot and is no longer at issue). See Pl.’s Mot. to Amend at 1. Walker’s Motion acknowledged that he had not raised these claims administratively prior to asserting them in an Amended Complaint, but argued that “numerous cases in this Court and elsewhere have held that a plaintiff may bring claims of retaliation for the first time in federal court without having to first present them to an agency.” Id. at 3; see also id. at 3-4 (collecting cases). Pursuant to the Court’s Scheduling and Procedures Order, Defendant’s Opposition was due no later than June 17, 2004. No opposition to Walker’s Motion to Amend was filed. The Court granted Walker’s unopposed Motion to Amend on June 29, 2004. On February 9, 2005, Walker filed a Motion to Amend his First Amended Complaint that added a retaliation claim based on Defendant’s actions associated with the RIF (claim four). See Pl.’s Mot. to Amend First Am. Compl. at 1. Similar to Walker’s first Motion to Amend, this motion again acknowledged that he had not exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to this retaliation claim but argued that exhaustion was not required “for the reasons discussed in plaintiffs previous Motion to Amend the Complaint.” Id. On February 18, 2005, Defendant filed a response to Walker’s Motion to Amend stating that “Defendant does not oppose Plaintiffs request to amend his Complaint ...” Def.’s Resp. to Pl.’s Mot. at 1. The Court granted Plaintiffs unopposed Motion to amend his First Amended Complaint on April 4, 2005. Defendant failed to file an Answer to either of Walker’s First or Second Amended Complaints. Although discovery was originally set to close on December 31, 2004, the Court ordered several extensions of that date as a result of the parties’ inability to comply with their joint discovery plans or follow the Court’s discovery deadlines. See, e.g., Min. Order dated April 13, 2005. Discovery was ultimately completed on November 21, 2005. Throughout this period of discovery, the parties litigated several motions to compel. In particular, Plaintiffs Second Supplemental Motion to Compel, filed on January 20, 2005, discussed each area of contested discovery, set forth Defendant’s responses and objections to each request, and provided reasons why Defendant’s production was deficient. See PL’s Second Suppl. Mot. to Compel at 1-22. As part of that Motion to Compel, Walker again explained that he amended his Complaint to add several unexhausted retaliation claims and that a plaintiff need not exhaust their administrative remedies to allege retaliation claims connected to the filing of an underlying EEO charge. Id. at 3. Defendant failed to file an Opposition to Walker’s Motion to Compel. Accordingly, on February 22, 2005, Magistrate Judge Alan Kay (to whom discovery matters had been referred) issued a Memorandum Order granting Walker’s Second Supplemental Motion to Compel. See [36] Mem. Order at 1-3 (Feb. 22, 2005). Following discovery, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, which Walker opposed. Defendant also filed a Reply. After the parties completed this briefing, Walker submitted a notice of supplemental authority relating to Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 126 S.Ct. 2405, 165 L.Ed.2d 345 (2006) (relating to claims of retaliation), as to which Defendant filed a response. Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is ripe for resolution. II. LEGAL STANDARD Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, 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 Defendant’s 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 (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 colorable, or is not sufficiently probative, summary judgment may be granted.” Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 249-50, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (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 (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)) (emphasis in original). Importantly, “[w]hile summary judgment must be approached with specific caution in discrimination cases, a plaintiff is not relieved of his obligation to support his 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, 1999)); 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 Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment under a “heightened standard” that reflects “special caution.” Aka v. Washington Hosp. Ctr., 116 F.3d 876, 879 (D.C.Cir.1997) (internal quotations omitted), overturned on other grounds, 156 F.3d 1284 (D.C.Cir.1998) (en banc). Nonetheless, while this special standard is more exacting, it is not inherently preclusive. Although more circumspect, the Court shall 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. III. DISCUSSION Before reaching the merits of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to each of Walker’s four claims, the Court must first address Defendant’s threshold argument that two of Walker’s retaliation claims should be dismissed because Walker failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. The Court shall then proceed to individually address each of Walker’s claims. A. Administrative Exhaustion Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment argues that Walker failed to exhaust his administrative remedies with respect to his retaliation claim based on Walker’s supervisors having deprived him of overtime work (claim two) and retaliation claim based on Walker’s non-selection for an Electronic Industrial Controls Mechanic Supervisor position (claim four). See Def.’s Mot. at 24-27. The Court finds that Defendant has waived this argument. 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 of formal charges, and appealing agency decisions to the Commission.” Bowden v. United States, 106 F.3d 433, 437 (D.C.Cir.1997). For example, aggrieved federal employees must initiate contact with an EEO counselor within 45 days of the date 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. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(1). “‘Because timely exhaustion of administrative remedies is a prerequisite to a Title VII action against the federal government,’ a court may not consider a discrimination claim that has not been exhausted in this manner absent a basis for equitable tolling.” Steele v. Schafer, 535 F.3d 689, 693 (D.C.Cir.2008) (quoting Stewart v. Ashcroft, 352 F.3d 422, 426 (D.C.Cir.2003)). Defendant’s argument focuses on two of Walker’s claims of retaliation, not discrimination. That distinction is material. In Saksenasingh v. Secretary of Education, the D.C. Circuit ruled that a lower court could properly assert jurisdiction over a plaintiffs unexhausted retaliation claims even if it ultimately dismissed the plaintiffs claim of discrimination. 126 F.3d 347, 351 (D.C.Cir.1997). As support, the Court cited Nealon v. Stone, a much-cited Fourth Circuit case holding that plaintiffs may assert Title VII retaliation claims in federal court without first exhausting their administrative remedies. 958 F.2d 584, 590 (4th Cir.1992). In that case, the Fourth Circuit joined “[a]ll other circuits that have considered the issue,” and explained that allowing plaintiffs to assert unexhausted retaliation claims is “the inevitable corollary of [the] ‘generally accepted principle that the scope of a Title VII lawsuit may extend to any kind of discrimination like or related to allegations contained in the charge and growing out of such allegations during the pendency of the case before the Commission.’ ” Id. (quoting Hill v. W. Elec. Co., 672 F.2d 381, 390 n. 6 (4th Cir.1982) (internal quotations and citation omitted)). The Fourth Circuit also explained that the rule reflects the practical reality that a plaintiff, “[h]aving once been retaliated against for filing an administrative charge ... will naturally be gun shy about inviting further retaliation by filing a second charge complaining about the first retaliation.” Id. Consistent with the D.C. Circuit’s Sakse-nasingh holding, courts in this district have previously allowed plaintiffs to advance unexhausted claims of retaliation. See, e.g., Hunt v. D.C. Dep’t of Corr., 41 F.Supp.2d 31, 37 (D.D.C.1999) (“courts frequently have not required [a] Plaintiff to file a new administrative action with the EEOC in order to exhaust her administrative remedies on [a] retaliation claim”); Bonds v. Heyman, 950 F.Supp. 1202, 1208 (D.D.C.1997) (“a plaintiff may raise [a] retaliation claim for the first time in federal court”). Nevertheless, the vitality of this line of cases has been called into question by the Supreme Court’s decision in Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 122 S.Ct. 2061, 153 L.Ed.2d 106 (2002). In Morgan, the Supreme Court held that “[discrete discriminatory acts are not actionable if time barred, even when they are related to acts alleged in timely filed charges” and that “[e]ach discrete discriminatory act starts a new clock for filing charges alleging that act.” Id. at 113, 122 S.Ct. 2061. Defendant’s Motion argues that Morgan altered the legal landscape such that Walker’s two unexhausted claims of retaliation should be dismissed from this suit (even though Morgan had been decided more than two years before Walker’s Motions to Amend). See Def.’s Mot. at 24-26. Walker reads Morgan differently, arguing that the decision “dealt only with the timeliness of the administrative complaints that were made and not with whether the failure to file any administrative claim should be excused.” Pl.’s Opp’n at 24. The D.C. Circuit has not had occasion to adopt either of these divergent views. In Weber v. Battista, the D.C. Circuit explained that, in the wake of Morgan, “two circuits have considered and reached different conclusions with respect to whether a claim arising after the filing of a formal administrative complaint must be raised with the EEOC ... before being brought before a district court.” 494 F.3d 179, 183 (D.C.Cir.2007). The Eighth Circuit has held that a plaintiff “need not separately exhaust her administrative remedies with respect to ‘subsequent retaliatory acts ... of a like kind to the retaliatory acts alleged in the EEOC charge, which were specified to be of an ongoing and continuing nature.’ ” Id. (quoting Wedow v. City of Kansas City, 442 F.3d 661, 673-74 (8th Cir.2006)). The Tenth Circuit reached a different conclusion, holding that a plaintiff must “start anew before the EEOC” before raising in the district court a discrete claim occurring after the filing of an administrative complaint. Id. (citing Martinez v. Potter, 347 F.3d 1208, 1210 (10th Cir.2003)). The D.C. Circuit declined to adopt either position in Weber, however, because the plaintiff in that case had, in fact, exhausted her administrative remedies. Id. at 183. While the Court acknowledges that this issue is an interesting one, the Court need not resolve it in this case because Morgan did not upset the well-established rule that administrative exhaustion “is subject to equitable doctrines such as tolling or estop-pel.” Morgan, 536 U.S. at 113, 122 S.Ct. 2061 (citing Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 455 U.S. 385, 393, 102 S.Ct. 1127, 71 L.Ed.2d 234 (1982) (“We hold that filing a timely charge of discrimination with the EEOC is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit in federal court, but a requirement that, like a statute of limitations, is subject to waiver, estoppel, and