Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM OPINION BERYL A. HOWELL, District Judge. Plaintiffs are nine current and former employees of the District of Columbia’s Child and Family Services Agency (“CFSA”), who assert that the CFSA “discriminated against them and similarly situated employees on the basis of their race, national origin, age, and/or in retaliation for complaining about discriminatory practices.” Second Amended Complaint (“Compl.”), ECF No. 17, at 2. As a consequence of CFSA’s alleged discriminatory and retaliatory actions, plaintiffs claim that they are entitled to damages under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 633a(a), the District of Columbia Human Rights Act (“DCHRA”), and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983. Pending before the Court are (1) the defendant’s motion, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to dismiss plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, and (2) two motions, pursuant to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for leave to permit nine additional current and former employees of CFSA to intervene as plaintiffs in this action. All together, the plaintiffs’ Complaint and proposed intervenors’ Complaints-in-intervention amount to over one hundred pages and over one thousand numbered paragraphs. They have alleged such a plethora of facts that they have made clear their success on the merits is impossible. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that the claims of six plaintiffs are barred by res judicata or failure to meet the procedural prerequisites for bringing this action, and the claims of the three remaining plaintiffs fail to state cognizable causes of action. Consequently, the defendant’s motion to dismiss is granted and the motions to intervene are denied. 1. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Procedural History Two plaintiffs, Angella Peters and Larry McCall, initiated this lawsuit on October 28, 2009, alleging that the District of Columbia violated their rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, for which they sought damages under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding four plaintiffs — Maria Dyson, Augustine Ekwem, Jacqueline Moore and Katherine Washington — as well as claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the ADEA, and the DCHRA. On March 16, 2010, the Court granted the plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, which added three more plaintiffs: Joan Simpson, Melva Meade, and Cynthia Courts-Marshall. See Minute Order (Mar. 16, 2010) (Sullivan, J.). The plaintiffs have continued to seek leave to add plaintiffs to this action. On July 23, 2010, and again on April 22, 2011, the plaintiffs moved, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24, to allow a total of nine additional putative plaintiffs to intervene. These motions to intervene are opposed by the defendant and have been denied by Order entered on March 30, 2012. This Memorandum Opinion sets forth the reasons for that Order. B. Allegations in Second Amended Complaint The nine plaintiffs named in the Second Amended Complaint are black women and men who have worked as caseworkers and supervisors at the CFSA for varying lengths of time, ranging from three to eighteen years. Four of the plaintiffs are current or former caseworkers and the other five plaintiffs are current or former supervisors. The four caseworker plaintiffs (Angella Peters, Larry McCall, Maria Dyson and Katherine Washington) complain primarily about the allegedly abusive and discriminatory conduct directed at them by a single supervisor. Three of these caseworker plaintiffs apparently remain employed at CFSA: both Maria Dyson and Katherine Washington remain caseworkers in Child Protective Services (“CPS”), a component of CFSA, and Larry McCall’s current assignment is not identified. The five management plaintiffs (Cynthia Courts-Marshall, Jacqueline Moore, Joan Simpson, Augustine Ekwem and Melva Meade), complain about the conduct of at least eight other managers at CFSA, including the CFSA Deputy Director of Operations, for allegedly creating a hostile work environment, and discriminatory and retaliatory conduct. Two of the management plaintiffs (Augustine Ekwem and Melva Meade) remain employed at CFSA, while the other three management plaintiffs (Cynthia Courts-Marshall, Jacqueline Moore and Joan Simpson) are no longer employed at CFSA. The Second Amended Complaint asserts two core allegations against CFSA: first, “[fjrom as early as 2001, the Child and Family Services Agency had a custom of allowing its supervisors to bully older, black social workers, particularly those from Africa or the Caribbean Islands,” and this conduct created a hostile work environment that management condoned. Compl. at 2. Second, CFSA, from as early as 2003, “had a custom of allowing its supervisors to retaliate against social workers who complain about discriminatory practices.” Id. The alleged retaliatory actions against the plaintiffs took different forms, ranging from re-assignment of duties to demotion in position to the unfair assignment of an overwhelming caseload. Specifically, the four caseworker plaintiffs complain that, following the tragic discovery, in January 2008, of the deaths of Banita Jacks’ four young daughters in a Washington, D.C. row house, there was a “surge in [the number of] child abuse and neglect reports.” Id. ¶¶ 75-89 (Peters), ¶¶ 125-33 (McCall), ¶¶ 166-93 (Dyson), ¶¶ 213-28 (Washington). While acknowledging this across-the-board increase in workload, the caseworker plaintiffs complain that they were assigned an unfair number of cases, which resulted in backlogs and prompted adverse employment actions, ranging from being “written up” to reprimands. Id. Two supervisor plaintiffs also allege retaliation: Jacqueline Moore alleges that after she complained to human resources about her treatment by a supervisor, she was retaliated against, id. ¶¶ 267-310, and Cynthia Courts-Marshall alleges that she was retaliated against after she refused to fire employees as instructed by her supervisor, id. ¶¶ 605-10, 617-18. The allegedly retaliatory actions against these two supervisors included poor job performance evaluations, which resulted in a denial of pay increases, id. ¶¶ 272-81, 293 (Moore); demotion to a caseworker position to help with the post-Jacks tragedy surge in cases, id. ¶¶ 284-86 (Moore); and re-assignment or removal of duties, id. ¶¶ 308-10 (Moore), id. ¶¶ 630-35 (Courts-Marshall). All nine plaintiffs claim that they were discriminated against on the basis of race and subjected or exposed to a hostile work environment diming at least some portion of their employment at CFSA between 2001 and 2009. Four plaintiffs (Ekwem, Moore, Peters and Simpson) also claim discrimination on the basis of national origin. Six plaintiffs (Dyson, Ekwem, McCall, Moore, Peters and Washington) claim age discrimination, even though the three plaintiffs who do not make this claim are also over 40 years of age and two of them are older than some of the plaintiffs who do claim age discrimination. Finally, six plaintiffs (Courts-Marshall, Dyson, McCall, Moore, Peters and Washington) claim retaliation. The Title VII and ADEA discrimination claims asserted by each plaintiff are summarized in the chart below. The factual allegations underlying the claims of discrimination, hostile work environment and retaliatory actions vary among the plaintiffs, as described in more detail below. Detailed review of these claims, viewing the claims in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, is necessary to assess their sufficiency and whether they “plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief,” as required by Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1941, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). 1. Allegations of CFSA-CPS Caseworker Plaintiffs Supervised by the Same Supervisor Four of the plaintiffs served as caseworkers in CFSA’s Child Protective Services and complain about the allegedly discriminatory and retaliatory conduct of the same supervisor. Plaintiff Angella Peters is a 51-year old, black woman of Jamaican origin, who worked as a CPS caseworker for approximately 12 years until her resignation in October, 2009. Compl. ¶¶ 24, 25, 93. On November 9, 2009, she filed a complaint against the CFSA with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), which issued a right-to-sue letter on March 2, 2010. Id. ¶ 2. Peters claims racial, national origin and age discrimination, a hostile work environment and retaliation based upon allegations that (1) a white woman supervisor (“Supervisor A”), to whom Peters was assigned in 2005, “treated black caseworkers from Africa and the Caribbean Islands in a demeaning fashion,” id. ¶ 40, apparently prompting three other employees from Jamaica and Nigeria to transfer out of the supervisor’s group, id. ¶¶ 40-46, 48; (2) Supervisor A complained about, and punished Peters for, “alleged transgressions of other caseworkers,” id. ¶¶ 50-51; “screamed at, talked down to, and pointed her finger at [Plaintiff] Peters,” as well as yelled at her in front of others, id. ¶¶ 52-53, and made “intimidating comments” that the supervisor did not make to her “African American co-workers,” id. ¶¶ 54-55; (3) Supervisor A took other actions against Peters, such as blocking her from leaving her cubicle, stopping colleagues from talking to her, and following Peters “into the bathroom and instructing] her to get back to her typing as she used the bathroom stall,” id. ¶¶ 56-58; (4) Supervisor A “bullied” white caseworkers, id. ¶ 37; (5) Supervisor A retaliated after Peters and her co-workers complained to the Program Manager, Supervisor B, about Supervisor A’s “abusive behavior” and race discrimination, prompting Supervisor B to hold a meeting in 2007 with Supervisor A and members of the unit, to discuss “racial sensitivity” and “assure[] the group that there would be no retaliation,” id. ¶¶ 68-72; and (5) following the Jacks tragedy, Peters was “assigned an overwhelming number of cases,” resulting in a case backlog for which she was given warnings, a reprimand and proposed suspension in October, 2009, while other members of Supervisor A’s unit with similar backlogs were not written up, id. ¶¶ 75-87 (under caption “Retaliation”). Peters’ complaints to two program managers, Supervisors C and D, “to end the abuse” were not addressed. Id. ¶ 88. In October 2009, Peters resigned from CFSA “due to intolerable working conditions.” Id. ¶¶ 93-94. Plaintiff Larry McCall is a 57-year old black man, who also worked as a CPS caseworker under Supervisor A. He filed a complaint with the EEOC against the CFSA but at the time of filing the complaint had not received a right-to-sue letter. Id. ¶ 3. McCall claims racial and age discrimination, a hostile work environment and retaliation based upon allegations that (1) he was subjected to Supervisor A’s intimidating comments such as “I am going to write you up,” id. ¶ 115; (2) he “watch[ed] [Supervisor A] mistreat his foreign born co-workers,” and was part of the group who complained in 2007 to Supervisor B about Supervisor A’s abusive behavior and race discrimination, id. ¶¶ 114, 119, 121; (3) following the Jacks tragedy, he was assigned new cases resulting in a case backlog for which he was written up and “threatened ... with the possibility of termination,” even though his backlog “was similar to those of other members of [the supervisor’s] unit, who had not been written up,” id. ¶¶ 123-37 (under the caption “Retaliation”); and (4) McCall transferred out of CPS to a position with lower take-home pay because he believed he would otherwise be terminated, id. ¶¶ 138-41. McCall appears to remain employed at CFSA. Plaintiffs Maria Dyson and Katherine Washington are 49 and 50-years old, respectively, black women, who both worked as CPS caseworkers under the same supervisor as Peters and McCall. Id. ¶¶ 147, 164, 202, 209. They both claim racial and age discrimination, a hostile work environment and retaliation based upon allegations that (1) Dyson and Washington witnessed Supervisor A abusing foreign-born employees, including Peters; Dyson “felt abused as well,” id. ¶¶ 154-61, 211-12; (2) following the Jacks tragedy and the surge in new cases, Dyson and Washington’s backlog of cases grew, resulting in Supervisor A writing up “Ms. Washington for having a backlog,” id. ¶¶ 171, 215, 225; (3) after Washington complained to management and filed a grievance with the union against Supervisor A, Washington was transferred to a new unit, where she was again “written up” in early January, 2010, after becoming a plaintiff in this lawsuit, id. ¶¶ 225-33; (4) Dyson complained to her supervisor (“Supervisor E”) that she was not being treated fairly after noticing that both “she and an older Indian caseworker [in her group] were being assigned a lot more cases than their three coworkers, one [of whom] was white and two [of whom] were younger.” Id. ¶¶ 176, 185, 187; (5) in retaliation, Supervisor E wrote up Dyson for her backlog, accused her of abusing overtime and ordered an audit of her timesheets, prompting Dyson to transfer to a different group in late 2009. Id. ¶¶ 192-94. Both Dyson and Washington appear to remain employed at CFSA. 2. Allegations of CFSA Supervisor Plaintiffs Plaintiff Jacqueline Moore is a 66-year old black woman of Trinidadian origin, who was a CFSA supervisor from 1995 until her resignation in November, 2009, except for a one-year period from February, 2008 until February, 2009, when she was detailed to work as a CPS hotline caseworker. Id. ¶¶ 236, 242, 284-85, 311. She filed a complaint with the EEOC, which issued a right-to-sue letter on March 19, 2010. Pis.’ Opp’n. to Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss (“Pis.’ Mem.”), ECF No. 22, at 11; Compl. ¶ 4. Moore claims racial, age and national origin discrimination, a hostile work environment and retaliation based upon allegations that (1) from 2000 to 2008, her black Program Administrator (“Supervisor F”) “singled [her] out for abusive treatment,” since Moore was the “only black foreign born supervisor” and “the oldest supervisor on [Supervisor F’s] staff,” by “isolating]” her, excluding her from meetings, becoming “hostile when Ms. Moore made a comment,” never inviting her to lunch with the Program Administrator and the staff, making disparaging remarks about her in the presence of other social workers, screaming at her, and “regularly threatening] to write up Ms. Moore, and on an occasion [writing] up Ms. Moore for ‘borderline insubordination,’ ” Compl. ¶¶ 246-63; (2) from 2004 to 2008, her immediate supervisor (“Supervisor G”) “was openly abusive,” “screamed at Ms. Moore during a meeting,” and wrote in an evaluation that he gave her a poor job performance evaluation because “Ms. Moore had filed complaints against him with human resources,” id. ¶¶ 268-69, 280; (3) following the Jacks’ tragedy, Moore was the only supervisor demoted to caseworker and detailed to CPS, where she received a “very good job performance evaluation” and was “officially reinstated to the position of supervisor,” id. ¶¶ 284-92 (under caption “Retaliation”); (4) for approximately three months in Spring 2009, when Supervisor D was her immediate supervisor, he was “abusive,” “regularly shouted at Ms. Moore in the presence of her staff,” and “threatened Ms. Moore with disciplinary action,” id. ¶¶ 297-300; and (5) following an unapproved four month leave under the Family Medical Leave Act, Moore discovered that her staff and duties had been reassigned to a younger employee, who was native born, id. ¶¶ 308, 310. “Feeling that she would be officially terminated, Ms. Moore submitted her resignation, effective January 1, 2010, in November 2009.” Id. ¶ 311. Plaintiff Joan Simpson is a 52-year old black woman of Jamaican origin, who was a CPS supervisor from 2005 until 2008, when she was “terminated as a result of the Jacks tragedy.” Id. ¶¶ 315, 32-21, 325. Simpson claims racial and national origin discrimination and a hostile work environment based upon allegations that (1) management did not express a policy of intolerance for the use of racial/ethnic slurs when, in 2005, a Nigerian employee and an African American employee were suspended for having a physical altercation during which the African American employee called the Nigerian an “African monkey,” and other employees used “racial and ethnic slurs,” including complaining about working for an Asian supervisor, id. ¶¶ 333, 344-48; (2) she witnessed Supervisor A engage in harsh treatment of Peters and Jamaican and Nigerian caseworkers, id. ¶¶ 352-69; (3) Simpson and Ekwem were the “only supervisors to be regularly assigned more than five caseworkers,” but her complaints to Plaintiff Courts-Marshall about the “disparity between the number of caseworkers assigned to her and Mr. Ekwen and their American born counterparts,” were not remedied, id. ¶¶ 380, 387, 390; (4) Supervisor B refused to write a recommendation for Simpson although she did so for an Asian co-worker, id. ¶¶ 396-99; and (5) “[m]anagement perpetuated the myth that foreign social workers were only in it for the money” by circulating a list of overtime earners, which list “included foreign born social workers,” id. ¶¶ 406-14. In January, 2008, Simpson was terminated “in response to the Jacks tragedy.” Id. ¶ 394. Plaintiff Augustine Ekwem is a 52-year old black man of Nigerian origin who had worked as a CPS supervisor for five years at the time the Second Amended Complaint was filed. Id. ¶¶ 426, 432. He claims racial, gender, age and national origin discrimination and a hostile work environment based upon allegations that (1) from 2004 to 2005, his white program administrator (“Supervisor H”) “harassed” and “demeaned” him, id. ¶¶ 470, 472; (2) following the Jacks tragedy, his workload increased significantly and, as the only Nigerian and oldest supervisor in CPS, Ekwem was assigned more caseworkers “than any other supervisor” and both he and Simpson were “regularly assigned more caseworkers than their American born counterparts” as well as assigned the “problem employees.” Id. ¶¶ 446, 452, 454-55, 467, 469, 473, 477-78; and (3) Ekwem expressed concern to the Deputy Director of Operations (“Supervisor I”) and his Program Manager (“Supervisor J”) about an overwhelmed caseworker under his supervision, but this caseworker continued to be assigned additional cases, including one in which a six month old boy died on June 25, 2008, resulting in termination of the caseworker and suspension of Ekwem for ten days, id. ¶¶ 437, 440, 442, 445, 457, 462-64. Ekwem appears to remain employed at CFSA. Plaintiff Melva Meade is a 60-year old black woman, who has been a CFSA training supervisor assigned to CPS since 2005. Id. ¶¶ 507, 510-511. She claims racial discrimination and hostile work environment based upon allegations that (1) “several black social workers, particularly those from Africa and the Caribbean Islands, were mistreated by their white supervisors,” including her observation of Supervisor H harassing Ekwem and other Nigerian caseworkers, id. ¶¶ 502-03, 530-59; (2) management circulated a list of overtime earners, which list included foreign born social workers, and would accuse people on the list of “ripping off the system” and “stealing overtime,” and management employed other “aggressive tactics to [discourage] these social workers from claiming the full amount of overtime pay they had earned,” id. ¶¶ 520-24; and (3) “[b]lack foreign born social workers, especially Africans, were stigmatized by these accusations,” id. ¶ 526. Meade appears to remain employed at CFSA. Plaintiff Cynthia Courts-Marshall is a 46-year old black woman, who served from 2002 to 2005 as a CFSA program manager and, in October, 2005, succeeded Supervisor H as the program administrator in charge of CPS, until her termination in January, 2008 “due to the Jacks tragedy.” Id. ¶¶ 565, 568-71, 641-42. She claims racial discrimination, hostile work environment and retaliation, based upon allegations that (1) “[executive management circulated lists with the names of the top overtime earners,” “accused people on the lists,” which included both American and foreign born social workers, of “stealing overtime,” and caused resentment of foreign born workers, particularly Africans, id. ¶¶ 597-602; (2) in January, 2006, Supervisor I, the Deputy Director of Operations, directed Courts-Marshall to terminate 15 employees, including Plaintiffs Peters, McCall, Dyson and Ekwem, but Courts-Marshall refused to comply, since she “concluded that the individuals on the list were placed there for retaliatory reasons, such as complaining about [Supervisor H’s] discriminatory practices,” id. ¶¶ 605, 608-09, 617-18; and (3) Supervisor I “effectively transferred Ms. Courts-Marshall’s decision making authority to [an Associate Deputy Director],” but refused to accept her offer to resign, and nevertheless subsequently terminated her “without a proper investigation,” id. ¶¶ 634-36, 642 (under caption “Retaliation”). In January, 2008, Courts-Marshall was terminated “due to the Jacks tragedy.” Id. ¶ 641. II. LEGAL STANDARD The defendant has moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim. In evaluating whether a complaint sufficiently states a claim for relief to withstand a motion to dismiss under this Rule, the court must first ascertain whether the complaint contains “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” as well as grounds for the court’s jurisdiction and the specific relief sought. Fed.R.Civ.P. (8)(a). While “detailed factual allegations” are not required, the complaint must “give the defendant fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted); see also Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C.Cir.2004). In assessing whether a complaint is sufficient, the “court ‘constru[es] the complaint liberally in the plaintiffs favor,’ ‘accepting] as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint.’ ” Aktieselskabet AF 21. November 2001 v. Fame Jeans, 525 F.3d 8, 15 (D.C.Cir.2008) (quoting Kassem v. Wash. Hosp. Ctr., 513 F.3d 251 (D.C.Cir.2008) ); see also Atherton v. D.C. Office of the Mayor, 567 F.3d 672, 681 (D.C.Cir.2009) . Notably, “the tenet that a court must accept as true all of the allegations contained in a complaint is inapplicable to legal conclusions. Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1940. Thus, the complaint must set forth more than “labels and conclusions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action,” and “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955); see also Aktieselskabet AF 21. November 21, 525 F.3d at 17 n. 4 (explaining that the court has “never accepted legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations”) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). “To survive a motion to dismiss, the pleadings must suggest a plausible scenario that shows that the pléader is entitled to relief.” Jones v. Horne, 634 F.3d 588, 595 (D.C.Cir.2011) (internal citation and quotations omitted); see also Ivey v. Fenty, 789 F.Supp.2d 65, 68 (D.D.C.2011) (“A claim is facially plausible when the pleaded factual content allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”) (internal citations and quotations marks omitted). The plausibility standard for pleading demands more than that the factual allegations present a “sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully,” and requires a “common sense,” “context-specific” examination of the pleadings to “determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949; see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 567-70, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (antitrust complaint dismissed because allegations of parallel conduct, even accepted as true, were consistent with an unlawful agreement but also compatible with, and indeed more likely explained by, lawful, unchoreographed free-market behavior and, therefore, did not plausibly suggest an unlawful agreement). “Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a defendant’s liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Indeed, to “enter the realm of plausible liability,” the factual allegations must be more than merely “neutral” or “suggestive,” and plaintiffs must “[nudge] their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557 n. 5, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955. Consequently, when evaluating whether a complaint sufficiently sets forth a plausible claim for relief under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must apply a two-pronged approach, which, first, “identifies] pleadings that, because they are no more than conclusions, are not entitled to the assumption of truth.” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1950. Second, the court must examine the factual allegations and, assuming their veracity, “then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Id. Absent factual matter permitting the court “to infer ‘more than the mere possibility of misconduct,’ ” the complaint must be dismissed. Jones, 634 F.3d at 596 (quoting Atherton, 567 F.3d at 681-82). Viewing the claims in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, as it must at this stage of the proceedings, the Court proceeds with a discussion of the plaintiffs’ claims as follows. The Court first addresses, in section III, Plaintiff Ekwem’s claims, which the Court concludes are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The Court then turns, in section IV, to the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for the claims of the remaining, eight plaintiffs. The Court addresses (A) the dismissal of the Title VII and ADEA claims of five of the plaintiffs for failure to exhaust their administrative remedies. The Court then analyzes the claims of the remaining plaintiffs, Peters, McCall, and Moore, addressing (B) their hostile work environment claims, (C) their disparate treatment claims, and (D) their retaliation claims. The Court then reviews the plaintiffs’ (E) constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and (F) District of Columbia Human Rights claims. Finally, the Court considers, in section V, the plaintiffs-intervenors’ Motions to Intervene. Since the Court concludes that all of the plaintiffs’ claims are subject to dismissal, and denies the plaintiffs-intervenors’ motions to intervene, the case must be dismissed. III. The Claims of Plaintiff Ekwem Are Barred by Res Judicata The Court first turns to Plaintiff Ekwem’s claims. The defendant contends that the claims asserted by Plaintiff Augustine Ekwem should be dismissed because he is barred from asserting them under the doctrine of res judicata. Indeed, Ekwem concedes that he was an individual plaintiff in a separate lawsuit previously filed in this Court arising out of his employment at CFSA. Pis.’ Mem. at 26. His prior lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice less than two months before joining this suit, on December 10, 2009, as a plaintiff in the First Amended Complaint. See Ekwem v. Fenty, 666 F.Supp.2d 71, 81 (D.D.C.2009) (“The Court dismisses plaintiffs federal claims because he has failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted [and] declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismisses plaintiffs state law claims without prejudice.”). For the reasons discussed below, Ekwem’s claims are barred under the doctrine of claim preclusion or res judicata. Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 892, 128 S.Ct. 2161, 171 L.Ed.2d 155 (2008). A. Legal Standard “The doctrine of res judicata prevents repetitious litigation involving the same causes of action or the same issues.” Sheppard v. District of Columbia, 791 F.Supp.2d 1, 4 (D.D.C.2011) (citing I.A.M. Nat’l Pension Fund, v. Indus. Gear Mfg. Co., 723 F.2d 944, 946 (D.C.Cir.1983)). Under claim preclusion, a subsequent lawsuit will be barred if there has been prior litigation (1) involving the same claims or cause of action, (2) between the same parties or their privies, and (3) there has been a final, valid judgment on the merits, (4) by a court of competent jurisdiction. See Porter v. Shah, 606 F.3d 809, 813 (D.C.Cir.2010); Smalls v. United States, 471 F.3d 186, 192 (D.C.Cir.2006) (citing Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. Univ. of Ill. Found., 402 U.S. 313, 323-24, 91 S.Ct. 1434, 28 L.Ed.2d 788 (1971); Comm’r of Internal Revenue v. Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591, 597, 68 S.Ct. 715, 92 L.Ed. 898 (1948)); Herrion v. Children’s Hosp. Nat’l Med. Ctr., 786 F.Supp.2d 359, 368 (D.D.C.2011). Moreover, a “ ‘final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action.’ ” Drake v. FAA, 291 F.3d 59, 66 (D.C.Cir.2002) (quoting Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94, 101 S.Ct. 411, 66 L.Ed.2d 308 (1980)) (emphasis in original); see also Int’l Union v. Clark, No. 02-1484, 2006 WL 2598046, at *12 n. 19, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64449, at *46 n. 19 (D.D.C. Sept. 11, 2006) (“[Ijndividual who did properly exhaust his administrative remedies ... is nevertheless barred from maintaining his Rehabilitation Act claim in this case because he litigated that claim to a judgment on the merits in [another] case.... The doctrine of res judicata therefore applies to [that plaintiff]’s claim and requires dismissal of his claim.”). There is no question here that the third and fourth prongs have been met since Ekwem’s prior lawsuit was dismissed in a final judgment on the merits by another judge from this Court. Thus, only the first and second factors for application of the res judicata doctrine need be addressed. B. Analysis In his dismissed complaint, Ekwem claimed, inter alia, that the defendants— the Mayor of the District of Columbia and CFSA — allegedly discriminated against him in violation of his right to equal protection under the Fifth Amendment, and conspired to deprive him of those rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, 1986 and 1988. Ekwem concedes that both of his lawsuits “allege employment discrimination at the [CFSA],” but argues that the first prong required for application of res judicata is not met. Pis.’ Mem. at 26. Specifically, he contends that his current Complaint differs from the dismissed claims in two ways: first, the instant Complaint focuses on “a hostile work environment claim under Title VII, § 1981, ADEA, and DCHRA;” and, second, the instant Complaint asserts different facts regarding the “constructive terminations” of co-workers in November 2009 that were not in existence at the time of his prior lawsuit. Id. The fact that the causes of action here are not identical to the causes of action in the prior suit, however, does not overcome application of the res judicata doctrine to bar Ekwen’s claims. “Whether two cases implicate the same cause of action turns on whether they share the same ‘nucleus of facts.’ ” Apotex, Inc. v. FDA, 393 F.3d 210, 217 (D.C.Cir.2004) (quoting Drake, 291 F.3d at 66); Page v. United States, 729 F.2d 818, 820 (D.C.Cir.1984). The factual allegations underpinning Ekwem’s current claims mirror those in the dismissed action. In the dismissed action, for example, Ekwem alleged that he was unfairly assigned an overwhelming number of cases to supervise in 2008 and that he was improperly disciplined after the death of a child whose case had been assigned to a caseworker under Ekwen’s supervision. Ekwem, 666 F.Supp.2d at 74-75. He asserts the same allegations in the instant complaint, namely, that his workload increased significantly in 2008 and that by June of 2008, he had been assigned more caseworkers than any other supervisor. Compl. ¶¶ 446, 452. The instant Complaint also avers that a caseworker under Ekwem’s supervision was assigned a child abuse and neglect case “which concluded on June 25, 2008 with the death of a six month old boy.” Id. ¶ 457. According to the Second Amended Complaint, the caseworker was terminated and, on July 9, 2008, Ekwem was placed on administrative leave. Id. ¶¶ 462-63. Based on this conduct, he alleges that the CFSA discriminated against him on the basis of his “race (black), national origin (Nigerian), age (52), and gender (male).” Id. ¶ 426. Under res judicata, a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or their privies from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action. In this action, Ekwem reasserts claims of discrimination that have been previously decided on the merits, and a new claim of “hostile work environment” that arises from the same factual basis and thus could have been brought in his prior lawsuit. Despite the differences in legal theories, both actions advanced by Ekwem relate largely to the same time period and turn on allegations that Ekwem was unfairly assigned too many cases and too many caseworkers to supervise, which resulted in him being improperly suspended. The claims he asserts here could have been brought in that action and, having skipped that opportunity, he is not allowed to assert them here. Finally, as to the last factor, the parties in the dismissed lawsuit are the same parties in this litigation. In the prior action, Ekwem named Adrian Fenty, in his official capacity as Mayor of the District of Columbia, and the CFSA as defendants. See Ekwem, 666 F.Supp.2d at 74. The real party in interest for the Mayor and CFSA in the dismissed lawsuit was the District, which is the same defendant as in the instant action. See Sheppard, 791 F.Supp.2d at 7 n. 6 (“Claims against the Mayor of the District of Columbia in his official capacity are construed as claims against the District itself.”) (citing Atchinson v. District of Columbia, 73 F.3d 418, 424 (D.C.Cir.1996)); Waker v. Brown, 754 F.Supp.2d 62, 65 (D.D.C.2010) (substituting the District of Columbia in place of mayor, police chief, and Department of Corrections); Henneghan v. D.C. Pub. Schs., 597 F.Supp.2d 34, 37 (D.D.C.2009) (substituting the District of Columbia for DCPS). - In sum, Ekwem’s instant claims are against the same party, the District of Columbia, involve the same core factual allegations, the same discrimination claims, and new claims that could have been raised in the prior dismissed action. Thus, his claims are barred by res judicata and are therefore dismissed. IV. DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS OF THE REMAINING EIGHT PLAINTIFFS The defendant has moved, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to dismiss the claims of the remaining eight plaintiffs on grounds that: first, the plaintiffs’ statutory claims under Title VII and the ADEA are barred for failure to exhaust administrative remedies; and second, the allegations of discrimination underlying the plaintiffs’ Title VII, ADEA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, and DCHRA claims are insufficient either under the McDonnell-Douglas framework or to demonstrate the requisite custom or policy of the District of Columbia to establish municipal liability. These arguments are addressed seriatim below, assuming the truth of the plaintiffs’ allegations as the Court must do at the 12(b)(6) stage of proceedings. A. Dismissal of Title VII and ADEA Claims of Five Plaintiffs For Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies The defendant argues for dismissal of the Title VII and ADEA claims in the Second Amended Complaint, except the claims asserted by Peters, as untimely due to the failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Def.’s Mem. at 11. At the time of filing the Second Amended Complaint only Peters had received a Righ-to-Sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), even though both McCall and Moore had also filed EEOC complaints. Compl. ¶¶2-4. Both McCall and Moore subsequently received their right-to-sue letters on March 19 and August 26, 2010, respectively. Pis.’ Mem. at 11, 28; Pis.’ EEOC Docs, ECF No. 30-2. The defendant does not address the impact of receipt by McCall and Moore of their EEOC right-to-sue letters after the filing of this lawsuit. Instead, the defendant analyzes the claims of these two plaintiffs as part of the group of plaintiffs who filed no complaint with the EEOC (“non-filing plaintiffs”), and argues that the Title VII and ADEA claims of all eight of these plaintiffs should be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit. The plaintiffs contend that any non-filing plaintiff may rely on “vicarious exhaustion” to assert his or her discrimination claims here. The defendant counters that “the diverse and varied nature” of the plaintiffs’ claims precludes the availability of vicarious exhaustion to excuse the failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Def.’s Reply Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss (“Def.’s Reply”), ECF No. 23, at 1. The Court agrees in part and disagrees in part. Specifically, as explained below, while the Court finds that McCall and Moore have timely exhausted their administrative remedies, the non-filing plaintiffs may not “piggy-back” on the administrative exhaustion by three of the plaintiffs. 1. Purpose of the Exhaustion Requirement Generally, exhaustion of administrative remedies by filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC is required before a plaintiff may bring a civil suit under Title VII or the ADEA. See, e.g., McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 798, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973); United Air Lines, Inc. v. Evans, 431 U.S. 553, 555 n. 4, 97 S.Ct. 1885, 52 L.Ed.2d 571 (1977); Washington v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 160 F.3d 750, 752 (D.C.Cir.1998) (“Before ... suing under either the ADEA or Title VII, an aggrieved party must exhaust his administrative remedies.... ”); McKeithan v. Boarman, 803 F.Supp.2d 63, n. 3 (D.D.C.2011); see also 29 U.S.C. § 626(d)(1); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1). “The purpose of the [administrative exhaustion] doctrine is to afford the agency an opportunity to resolve the matter internally and to avoid unnecessarily burdening the courts.” Artis v. Bernanke, 630 F.3d 1031, 1034 (D.C.Cir.2011) (quoting Wilson v. Pena, 79 F.3d 154, 165 (D.C.Cir.1996)). Ordinarily, as proof of such exhaustion of administrative remedies, a plaintiff would receive a right-to-sue letter from the EEOC, indicating either the EEOC’s dismissal of the case or its inability to bring a civil action within 180 days of the plaintiffs EEOC charge. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1); see also Park v. Howard Univ., 71 F.3d 904, 907 (D.C.Cir.1995) (“Only after the EEOC has notified the aggrieved person of its decision to dismiss or its inability to bring a civil action within the requisite time period can that person bring a civil action herself.”); Currier v. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Inc., 159 F.3d 1363, 1366 (D.C.Cir.1998); Adams v. District of Columbia, 740 F.Supp.2d 173, 186 (D.D.C.2010). Thus, receipt of a notice of right-to-sue letter is a condition precedent to the initiation of a Title VII or ADEA action in court. See Williams v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 721 F.2d 1412, 1418 n. 12 (D.C.Cir.1983); Bondy v. Humana, Inc., No. 95-456, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10035, at *10 (D.D.C.1996); see also Tlush v. Mfrs. Res. Ctr., 315 F.Supp.2d 650, 655 (E.D.Pa.2002) (receipt of right-to-sue letter from the EEOC is a condition precedent to filing a Title VII claim). 2. Plaintiffs Peters, McCall and Moore’s Title VII and ADEA Claims Meet Exhaustion Requirement At the outset, the defendant does not challenge Peters’ claims under Title VII or the ADEA for failure to exhaust administrative remedies since she received her EEOC right-to-sue letters on March 2, 2010, after the filing of the original and First Amended Complaint, on October 28, 2009 and December 10, 2009, respectively, but before the filing of the Second Amended Complaint on March 16, 2010. Compl. ¶ 2; Pis.’ EEOC Docs, ECF No. 30-1. Moore “received her Right to Sue Letter on March 19, 2010,” after the filing of both the First Amended Complaint, when Moore first joined the action as a plaintiff, and the Second Amended Complaint. Pis.’ Mem. at 11/28; Compl. ¶4; Pis.’ EEOC Docs., ECF No. 30-3. McCall received his right-to-sue letters from the EEOC for both his Title VII and ADEA claims on August 26, 2010, after the filing of all three complaints. Compl. ¶ 3. Pis.’ EEOC Docs., ECF No. 30-2. The law is clear that “the defect of a prematurely filed lawsuit may be excused when it is cured by the issuance of a right to sue letter while the action is pending.” Cruz-Packer v. District of Columbia, 539 F.Supp.2d 181, 190 (D.D.C.2008) (citing Williams, 721 F.2d at 1418 n. 12). Thus, defendant’s exhaustion argument is moot as to Moore and McCall. See Fennell v. AARP, 770 F.Supp.2d 118, 126 (D.D.C.2011) (motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies denied where plaintiff received EEOC right-to-sue letter during pendency of lawsuit); Giardino v. District of Columbia, 252 F.R.D. 18, 20 (D.D.C.2008) (“Because the EEOC ... issued a right-to-sue letter prior to the dismissal of his federal employment claims, those claims will not now be dismissed.”); Holmes v. PHI Serv. Co., 437 F.Supp.2d 110, 123 (D.D.C.2006) (“[T]he plaintiffs failure to exhaust her administrative remedies before bringing this action was cured when the EEOC issued its second right-to-sue letter to the plaintiff ... encompassing her retaliatory discharge claim.”); see also Hunter v. D.C. Child & Family Sens. Agency, 710 F.Supp.2d 152, 157 (D.D.C.2010) (where plaintiff failed to allege receipt of right-to-sue letter but District did not contest that plaintiff received the EEOC letter after the filing of the complaint, District’s “exhaustion argument is deemed abandoned”). Accordingly, to the extent that the defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is intended to reach Moore and McCall, the motion is unavailing on this ground. 3. No Vicarious Exhaustion for Five Non-Filing Plaintiffs The remaining five plaintiffs (Dyson, Washington, Meade, Simpson, and Courts-Marshall) have concededly not previously filed any complaints with the EEOC, despite the requirement that all employment discrimination claims be initially and timely filed with the EEOC prior to pursuing .relief in court. These five plaintiffs rely upon the “single-filing” exception to the normal rule to urge the Court to allow them to “piggy-back” on Peters’ perfected charge and, presumably, the now perfected charges of McCall and Moore. The single-filing exception “allows non-filing parties to join the suit of another similarly situated plaintiff who did file an administrative complaint against the same defendant.” Brooks v. Dist. Hosp. Partners, L.P., 606 F.3d 800, 804 (D.C.Cir.2010) (citing Foster v. Gueory, 655 F.2d 1319, 1322 (D.C.Cir.1981)); see also Byrd v. District of Columbia, 807 F.Supp.2d 37, 59 (D.D.C.2011) (“Under specific circumstances, a court may alternatively apply the ‘single filing exception’ to allow a plaintiff who faded to adhere to administrative requirements to vicariously exhaust her filing responsibilities via another plaintiffs timely filed EEOC claim.”) (quoting Brooks, 606 F.3d at 807). This exception is only available to non-filing parties, however, if they possess claims that are “so similar to those asserted by the original plaintiff that no purpose would be served by requiring them to file independent charges.” Id. at 63 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted); see also Price v. Choctaw Glove & Safety Co., 459 F.3d 595, 599 (5th Cir.2006) (claims dismissed of plaintiff members of decertified class who had not filed administrative charges since “[a] non-charging party cannot bring her own independent lawsuit based upon another party’s charge.”); Horton v. Jackson County Bd. of County Commr’s, 343 F.3d 897, 900-01 (7th Cir.2003) (single filing rule not applicable to plaintiff, who was allegedly retaliated against for supporting the discrimination suit of co-plaintiff who filed administrative charge, since despite the connection between them, different acts were behind the firing of the two plaintiffs). In Cook v. Boorstin, 763 F.2d 1462 (D.C.Cir.1985), which is relied upon by plaintiffs, see Pis.’ Mem. at 10, the court explained that “the critical factor in determining whether an individual Title VII plaintiff must file an [administrative] charge, or whether he may escape this requirement by joining with another plaintiff who has filed such a charge, is the similarity of the two plaintiffs’ complaints.” Cook, 763 F.2d at 1466 (internal quotation marks omitted). In assessing the similarity of claims, the court provided a practical test, explaining that “[w]here the two claims are so similar that it can fairly be said that no conciliatory purpose would be served by filing separate [administrative] charges, then it would be wasteful, if not vain ... to require separate ... filings.” Id. (quoting Foster, 655 F.2d at 1322) (internal quotations omitted). The court cautioned, however, that “where the two complaints differ to the extent that there is a real possibility that one of the claims might be administratively settled while the other can be resolved only by the courts ... each plaintiff should be required to separately file ... [a] charge in order to effectuate the purpose of Title VII’s provisions for administrative relief.” Id. (internal emphasis omitted); see also De Medina v. Reinhardt, 686 F.2d 997, 1012 (D.C.Cir.1982) (reversing district court’s dismissal of intervenor’s claim upon finding that “her claim was so similar to that made by [plaintiff], who had filed an EEOC charge ... that it can fairly be said that no conciliatory purpose would be served by filing separate EEOC charges”); Byrd, 807 F.Supp.2d at 63 (“The similarity of two claims is evaluated for whether the original filing performs the principal notice function of the EEOC filing requirement, thus rendering a second filing by a similarly situated plaintiff unnecessary and wasteful.”); Moore v. Chertoff, 437 F.Supp.2d 156, 163 (D.D.C.2006) (“A plaintiff may invoke the doctrine of vicarious exhaustion only if one plaintiff actually has exhausted his or her claims and if the exhausted claims are so similar to the unexhausted claims ... ”); Int’l Union v. Clark, No. 02-1484, 2006 WL 2598046, at *10, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64449, at *37 (D.D.C. Sept. 11, 2006) (failure of some plaintiffs to exhaust their administrative remedies may be excused “so long [as] one of their co-plaintiffs has properly exhausted a claim that is ‘so similar that it can fairly be said that no conciliatory purpose would be served by filing separate [administrative complaints]’ ”). As noted above, the exhaustion requirement serves the dual purpose of notice to the employer of the charge and an opportunity for both the employer and the EEOC to settle the dispute. For this reason, in cases where the single-filing doctrine has been invoked, courts have examined the original EEOC filing of the party with the perfected EEOC charge to evaluate whether it provided sufficient notice of all charges by the plaintiffs who claim to be similarly situated and seek to “piggy-back” on that charge. Recent cases from this jurisdiction are instructive in evaluating the similarity of claims for employment discrimination and retaliation to support application of the single-filing exception. For example, in Brooks v. Dist. Hosp. Partners, L.P., the D.C. Circuit found that the district court had improperly dismissed claims asserted by external applicants for nursing assistant positions for lack of administrative exhaustion. 606 F.3d at 807. The court concluded those external applicants could “piggy back” on the perfected EEOC charge filed by an internal applicant since examination of that EEOC charge showed that it raised the same race discrimination claim as the external applicants, was asserted on behalf of others similarly situated, and the EEOC’s investigation reviewed data related to both internal and external applicants to find a disparate impact on black candidates from the employer’s use of a new three-part screening test. Id. Thus, the court held that an independent EEOC filing by the external applicants “would have been redundant; [the employer] already had received adequate notice of appellants’ exact allegation and the EEOC had first crack at resolving that allegation.” Id. In such circumstances, where multiple plaintiffs’ claims arose from the same allegedly discriminatory practice presented to and analyzed by the EEOC, the court found that the plaintiffs had “properly invoked the single-filing exception to join the lawsuit. ...” Id. The district court in Byrd v. District of Columbia reached a different result. In that Title VII lawsuit, four plaintiff-employees alleged sexual harassment and retaliation by two male supervisors at the D.C. Department of Parks and Recreation. Byrd, 807 F.Supp.2d at 45. Chief Judge Lamberth reviewed the original EEOC charge and a supporting internal report submitted • to the EEOC to determine whether a plaintiff, who never filed an EEOC complaint before joining the lawsuit, was permitted to “piggy-back” on her co-plaintiffs’ perfected administrative complaints. Id. at 63. Despite certain similarities of legal claims and “overlapping” facts between the EEOC charge and the factual'allegations asserted by the plaintiff, Chief Judge Lamberth concluded that the plaintiffs complaint would require “a different factual inquiry and testimony from different witnesses,” and therefore would not put the defendant on notice of the extent of the plaintiffs allegations or potential hostile work environment and retaliation claims. Id. at 64. As a consequence, the court dismissed that plaintiffs Title VII claims for failure to comply with the administrative requirements. Id. The Court finds that the legal and factual issues at stake in the instant matter are more akin to those in Byrd, where the court determined vicarious exhaustion was unavailable, than in Brooks. The Second Amended Complaint summarily mentions that Peters, McCall and Moore filed charges with the EEOC, without any description of the precise factual allegations presented to that agency. No party to the instant action provided the Court with a copy or details regarding the contents of these perfected EEOC charges in order to assess the sufficiency of notice about the discrimination allegations, until the Court so directed. In its briefing, the defendant relies solely on a comparison of factual allegations and legal claims asserted by the plaintiffs in the Second Amended Complaint to show that they are so “diverse and varied” and “wide-ranging” that “separate administrative adjudication was not only possible, but necessary.” Def.’s Reply at 3. In the defendant’s view, the five non-filing plaintiffs (Dyson, Washington, Simpson, Meade and Courts-Marshall) may not piggyback on the administratively exhausted claims because these plaintiffs allege different bases for discrimination and different kinds of mistreatment by different supervisors. Def.’s Mem. at 11-12; Def.’s Reply at 3-4. The Court agrees. The legal claims of the five non-filing plaintiffs are not identical to those asserted by McCall, Moore, and Peters in the Second Amended Complaint or in their perfected EEOC charges. In the Second Amended Complaint, the three filing plaintiffs each assert claims of race discrimination, hostile work environment and retaliation, and both Moore and Peters also assert claims of age and non-American born national origin discrimination, all of which were stated in their respective EEOC charges. While each of the non-filing plaintiffs assert legal claims of race discrimination and hostile work environment within CPS during all or part of the same time period from 2005 to 2009, only one (Simpson) claims national origin discrimination, two (Washington and Dyson) claim age discrimination and four (claim retaliation). Thus, the non-filing plaintiffs provide different combinations of protected status for their discrimination claims than those included in the perfected EEOC charges of Peters, McCall, and Moore. The differences in their legal claims undercut each other. Peters and Moore’s EEOC charges assert age and national origin discrimination based upon the alleged assignment of more work and the alleged harsher scrutiny given to older, non-American born black caseworkers and supervisors. More precisely, Peters states in her EEOC charge that black caseworkers and supervisors, who are “age 40 and over, and non-American born are systematically assigned more work and subjected to harsher scrutiny than others who are not in these categories.” Pis.’ EEOC Docs., No. 30-1, at 1. Moore indicates in her EEOC charge that she has “been subjected to differential treatment as compared to my non-Trinidadian co-workers,” including that after a leave, she “discover[ed] that a younger, Black American had been hired to fill [her] position.” Pls. EEOC Docs., ECF No. 30-3, at 1. Yet, despite their EEOC charges of age discrimination, which are repeated in the Second Amended Complaint, three of the non-filing plaintiffs (Meade, Simpson, and Courts-Marshall) are 40 or older but do not allege any age discrimination. Furthermore, despite the EEOC charges by Peters and Moore of national origin discrimination against non-American born black employees, McCall and four of the non-filing plaintiffs (Dyson, Washington, Meade, Courts-Marshall) do not fit into the category of “non-American born” and still claim that they, too, were discriminated against because they were black. The differences in the factual allegations pertaining to each plaintiffs claims also undercut each other. For example, notably, Moore was one of four supervisors detailed to CPS to assist with the surge in cases after the Jacks tragedy, and despite her “humiliation] by her demotion to hotline caseworker,” she “received compliments on her work and a very good job performance evaluation,” after which she was “officially reinstated to the position of supervisor and given a staff.” Compl. ¶¶ 285-92. Moore’s positive experience is difficult to square with the allegations of race, age and national origin discrimination directed at CPS caseworkers alleged by her co-plaintiffs. The Second Amended Complaint further undermines this core racial and national origin discrimination claim with inconsistent allegations that employees who were not black also suffered discriminatory actions. See, e.g., id. ¶¶ 176-88 (Dyson) (Indian co-worker also assigned more cases than “white,” “younger” co-workers); id. ¶ 37 (Peters) (Supervisor A “bullied” white caseworkers). As the defendant observes, “the individual plaintiffs’ allegations are so varied that they even contradict themselves.” Def.’s Reply Mem. at 3. Although the non-filing plaintiffs’ legal claims overlap with those of the perfected EEOC charges, this is not enough to excuse the bypassing of the administrative process for these five plaintiffs when the underlying factual allegations for each of their claims differ significantly. The single-filing doctrine is limited to cases in which the legal claims are identical and arise from the same facts, not merely from overlapping or similar facts that may be linked to each other because the facts involve employees of the same agency. Indeed, just because the plaintiffs claim to have suffered a violation of one or more of the same provisions of law as contained in the perfected EEOC charges does not mean that their claims depend upon a shared set of facts or a common injury that would have provided notice of the individual claims. Unlike Brooks, where not only the legal claims were identical but also the factual allegations supporting those claims stemmed from the employer’s use of the same challenged hiring practice, Peters, McCall and Moore’s perfected administrative charges each allege distinct factual events that not only differ among themselves but also from those of the five non-filing plaintiffs. Among the myriad ways in which the allegations asserted by the non-filing plaintiffs in the Second Amended Complaint differ from the facts set forth in the EEOC charges filed by McCall, Moore and Peters are that different management personnel were responsible for the discriminatory conduct at issue. The EEOC charges of both Peters and McCall cite allegedly unfair conduct only by Supervisor A and Moore cites such conduct only by Supervisor F. In the Second Amended Complaint, Moore also describes allegedly abusive conduct by Supervisors D and G. The non-filing plaintiffs complain about entirely different supervisors. Non-filing plaintiffs Dyson, Simpson, Meade and Courts-Marshall complain about conduct by Supervisors B, E, H and I, who are nowhere complained about by Peters, McCall or Moore either in the Complaint or in the perfected EEOC charges. In addition, the alleged misconduct engaged in by Supervisors A through I towards the non-filing plaintiffs varies significantly from the specific conduct alleged in the perfected EEOC charges. McCall’s EEOC charge refers to a single instance of Supervisor A giving him a critical written performance warning in July, 2009, while Peters’ EEOC charge states that the same Supervisor A “singled [her] out” and “on at least four occasions” made formal write-ups about Peters’ performance, even though similarly situated employees, who were younger and white, were not written-up. Pis.’ EEOC Docs., at ECF Nos. 30-1, 30-2. In the Second Amended Complaint, Peters provides additional detail that Supervisor A made abusive and demeaning comments and engaged in bullying conduct directed at her. The other three CPS caseworkers (McCall, Dyson and Washington) allegedly witnessed aspects of Supervisor A’s mistreatment of Peters, but nowhere allege that this abusive conduct was directed at them. Indeed, even though Dyson was supervised by Supervisor A, she claims that a different supervisor, Supervisor E, imposed performance penalties on her due to her backlog of cases following the Jacks tragedy. Compl. ¶¶ 190-92. As noted above, in her EEOC charge, Moore cites her black Supervisor F for excluding Moore from meetings and assigning her “a greater work load and ... menial task[s].” Pls.’ EEOC Docs., ECF No. 30-3. By contrast to the conduct of Supervisors A and F cited in the perfected EEOC charges, the allegedly discriminatory conduct engaged in by the other supervisors set forth in the Second Amended Complaint covers a broad range of activity. For example, certain supervisors are accused of ineffectually addressing employee complaints about Supervisor A’s conduct (Supervisors B, C, D), refusing to write a recommendation (Supervisor B), or directing a subordinate to terminate employees purportedly for retaliatory reasons (Supervisor I). These differences are significant. Confronted with the charges of the three filing plaintiffs, the EEOC would not have been alerted to the scope of the allegations asserted now by the non-filing plaintiffs against a far greater number of supervisors in the Second Amended Complaint. Finally, the claimed adverse employment consequences of the defendant’s allegedly discriminatory conduct varies between the filing and the non-filing plaintiffs. For example, both Peters and Moore claim