Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM OPINION BERYL A. HOWELL, District Judge. The plaintiffs Gregory Bowyer and Gerald Pennington are two African American firefighters in the District of Columbia who bring this action against the defendants District of Columbia (“the District”), Dennis L. Rubin, and Gary Palmer, Jr. under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the District of Columbia Whistleblower Protection Act, D.C. Code §§ 1-615.51, et seq. Common to all three of their claims is the plaintiffs’ contention that the defendants retaliated against them for speaking out about a variety of issues within the District of Columbia Fire and Emergency Medical Services (“DCFEMS”). Over the course of nearly two years, the plaintiffs allege that they complained within and outside the DCFEMS about what they believed was racial hostility and discrimination, the mishandling and subsequent cover-up of fire investigations, and general professional misconduct. The plaintiffs now claim that their complaints were met with swift and multifarious retaliation by the defendants in the form of disciplinary actions, removal of privileges and responsibilities, and other attempts to ostracize and isolate the plaintiffs from the rest of their unit. All three defendants have moved for summary judgment. I. BACKGROUND The plaintiffs are both “career firefighter[s] and fire investigator[s] currently employed by the DCFEMS.” Compl. for. Declaratory, Injunctive, & Monetary Relief & Jury Demand (“Compl.”) ¶¶ 7-8, ECF No. 1. In particular, both of the plaintiffs worked for many years, beginning in 2001, as fire investigators in the Fire Investigations Unit (“FIU”), id. ¶ 12, which is a specialized unit within the DCFEMS responsible for investigating the origins and causes of all fires that occur in the District, investigating arsons, and enforcing compliance with fire-related laws and regulations. All parties agree that from 2003 to 2007, the racial makeup of the FIU was 100% African American. Def. D.C.’s Statement of Undisputed Facts (“D.C. Facts”) ¶ 8, ECF No. 49-1; Pis.’ Statement of Disputed Facts in Response to D.C. (“Pis.’ D.C. Facts”) ¶ 8, ECF No. 55-1. In April 2007, defendant Rubin became the Fire Chief of DCFEMS, and Rubin promoted defendant Palmer to the position of Deputy Chief and Fire Marshal. D.C. Facts ¶ 9; Pis.’ Mem. of P. & A. in Opp’n to Def. D.C.’s Mot. Summ. J. (“Pis.’ D.C. Opp’n”) at 2, ECF No. 55. The plaintiffs claim that defendant Rubin “implemented a race based policy under which he assigned more white personnel to the FIU to increase the percentage of white investigators.” Pis.’ D.C. Facts ¶ 9. To effectuate this policy, the plaintiffs claim that the defendants “relaxed the requirements and standards for promotion to the FIU in order to ensure the addition of the white candidates it assigned to the unit.” Id. More particularly, the plaintiffs claim that “[n]one of the white firefighters whom the Department assigned to the [FIU] pursuant to this policy met the qualification requirements for membership in the [FIU],” and the white firefighters in the FIU “have failed portions of the written, physical, or psychological examinations required for assignment to the position of fire investigator.” Compl. ¶ 13. With respect to the alleged relaxation of requirements and standards in the FIU, the plaintiffs claim specifically that the defendants (1) lowered the minimum number of years of experience required to become an investigator, from five years to three years; (2) increased the maximum allowable body fat percentage for fire investigators; (3) loosened the criminal background checks and psychiatric checks for new investigators; (4) changed the DCFEMS shift work and division to attract white candidates; (5) eliminated the formerly required 180-day investigator-training course and exam; and (6) assigned overtime disproportionately to white members of the FIU. Pis.’ D.C. Opp’n at 36-37. As a result of this alleged policy, the plaintiffs claim that the presence of African Americans in the FIU after 2007 dropped precipitously to 40%. See Compl. ¶ 15; see also Pis.’ Ex. 19, ECF No. 55-2 (purporting to list “Active Members in DCFEMS FIU”). The plaintiffs allege that “[t]he policy of assigning new personnel to the FIU was based solely on race,” that “all of the supervisors in FIU are [now] white,” and that, in addition to the racial composition, the defendants’ alleged policy has “also resulted in a substantial decline in DCFEMS’ ability to determine accurately the cause and origin of fires and to perform accurate follow-up investigations of potential arsons .:. given the assignment of unqualified personnel [to] this unit.” Compl. ¶ 15. It is this alleged “assignment of unqualified [white] firefighters to important roles in FIU” and the resulting alleged “serious problems with fire investigations” that is the starting point for the events that are at issue in this case. See id. ¶¶ 16-17. The plaintiffs eventually filed internal Equal Employment Opportunity (“EEO”) complaints with the DCFEMS in June 2008 related to this alleged discriminatory policy, in which the plaintiffs complained of racial discrimination in the FIU, race-based assignments, and preferential treatment for white investigators. See id. ¶ 37; see also Pis.’ Exs. 37-38, ECF No. 55-2. The plaintiffs also say that they repeatedly raised concerns to their superiors about the racial disparities within the FIU and the deleterious effects that the disparities were having upon fire investigations. See, e.g., Pis.’ D.C. Opp’n at 18-19. Beginning sometime in 2007, in addition to the explicitly race-based issues, the plaintiffs allege that they began raising concerns to their superiors about a broad range of other perceived improprieties within the DCFEMS, and the FIU in particular. See, e.g., Pis.’ D.C. Opp’n at 18-26. The plaintiffs allege that they raised their concerns to “their direct supervisor Sergeant Phillip Proctor, Defendant Palmer, Defendant Rubin, and Assistant Fire Chief Brian Lee.” Compl. ¶ 17. The Court will discuss in further detail the issues that arose within the FIU, how the plaintiffs say they spoke out about those issues, and the alleged retaliation that followed. A. Alleged Misconduct Within the FIU During 2006, a number of firefighters were temporarily detailed to the FIU, and DCFEMS hired two outside instructors to provide instruction on fire investigation to the newly detailed firefighters. Def. D.C.’s Supplemental Statement of Undisputed Facts (“D.C. Supp. Facts”) ¶¶ 21-24, ECF No. 59-2. These outside instructors provided two weeks of instruction and administered an exam to the firefighters at the end of the two weeks. Id. ¶ 24. Sgt. Pro'ctor also provided an additional week of training but decided not to administer any exam. Id. ¶ 25. Before deciding not to administer an exam, Sgt. Proctor inadvertently left a copy of an exam he planned to administer in a computer room printer, which was then obtained by a number of the detailed firefighters. Id. ¶ 26. After learning of this incident, Sgt. Proctor decided not to administer a test; informed his colleague, Lieutenant Robert Pearson, of the incident; and as a result Lt. Pearson administered a test to the detailed firefighters that differed from the one prepared by Sgt. Proctor. Id. The defendants maintain that, in addition to the fact that the administered test was different than the test obtained by the firefighters, the, administered test also “had no bearing on whether these detailed firefighters would be admitted into FIU” and did not “affect[] the assignment or pay of the temporary fire investigators.” Id. ¶¶ 27, 36. A subsequent internal investigation of the matter concluded that Sgt. Proctor did not assist the incoming fire investigators in cheating on the exam. Id. ¶ 34. Nevertheless, the plaintiffs say that they complained to defendant Palmer that Sgt. Proctor had “helped white candidates cheat on the examinations required to become fire investigators.” Pis.’ D.C. Opp’n at 4; Compl. ¶ 18. In addition to the alleged cheating incident, the plaintiffs say that they complained to' their superiors at the DCFEMS in 2007 about the conduct of Lieutenant Craig Duck, who was at that time the supervisor of the' FIU. See Compl. ¶ 19. According to the plaintiffs, Lt. Duck was engaging in two séparate types of misconduct. First, he was allegedly attempting to create a hostile work environment for African Americans in the FIU by referring to the white investigators as his “team,” reassigning follow-up investigations exclusively to these white investigators, and pressuring white investigators to stop associating with “Pennington’s team,” which the plaintiffs claim referred to the African American investigators. Id. ¶¶ 19-20. The plaintiffs allege that Lt. Duck’s behavior “created an atmosphere of tension and mistrust within the FIU,” which allegedly made it “nearly impossible for [the plaintiffs] to successfully complete the origin- and-cause investigations to which they were assigned.” Id. ¶ 20. The plaintiffs specifically contend that they complained to Lt. Duck directly on September 28, 2007, about the preferential, treatment being .given to white investigators, but. the plaintiffs allege that Lt. Duck “denied Plaintiffs’ accusations, and the preferential treatment of white members of the FIU continued.” Id. ¶ 21. ' The plaintiffs also say that they complained about instances of what could be termed fraud, waste, or abuse by Lt. Duck. In Júne 2007, the plaintiffs' allege that they complained to defendant Palmer, Sgt. Proctor, and Assistant Fire Chief Lee that “Lt. Duck was manipulating fire-investigation data and reports in order to justify the purchase of newer or fancier equipment, which he referred to as ‘toys.’ ” Compl. ¶ 29. The plaintiffs say that they reported that “Lt. Duck overstated - the utilization of particular pieces • of equipment in hopes of hastening their replacement.” Id.; see also Pis.’ D.C. Opp’n at 22 (contending that Lt. Duck “instructed] subordinates to say that a tank of bottled air had been used for four hours- when it had actually been used for ten minutes” and “list[ed] use of equipment that the unit never had”). B. Allegedly Mishandled Fire Investigations The bulk of the plaintiffs’ alleged complaints to their superiors centered on what they believe was a series of mishandled fire-related investigations from 2007-2008. As discussed above, the plaintiffs generally attribute these “botched” investigations to what they claim was a race-based policy of bringing in inexperienced and unqualified white firefighters to the FIU to conduct fire investigations. See Compl. ¶¶ 15-16; see also Pis.’ D.C. Opp’n at 12. 1. Eastern Market Fire The first and most high profile of these fire investigations began on April 30, 2007, when a three-alarm fire destroyed the butcher, bakery, and fishmonger stalls at the District’s historic Eastern Market. Compl. ¶ 23. See generally Keith L. Alexander, Michelle Boorstein, & Allison Klein, Beloved Eastern Market, Library in Georgetown Ravaged by Fires, Wash. Post, May 1, 2007, at Al. Lt. Duck assigned fire investigator Keith Byrd — whom the plaintiffs allege was “an inexperienced white investigator” — to lead the investigation. Compl. ¶ 23. Within 24 hours of the blaze, Chief Rubin commented to 'the press that “he was ’90 percent’ sure last night that the Eastern Market fire was accidental, probably caused by an electrical problem.” Alexander, et al., supra; see also Compl. ¶ 23. Byrd subsequently issued a report that came to the same conclusion: the fire was an accident. Compl. ¶ 23. The plaintiffs allege, however, that the DCFEMS “had evidence suggesting that a serial arsonist had intentionally set the Eastern Market fire,” namely, the fact that the DCFEMS “had recently extinguished an unusually large number of fires set in dumpsters within a four-block radius of Eastern Market, including several dumpster fires on the same night as the Eastern Market fire.” Id. ¶ 24. Furthermore, a report issued by the federal Bureau of- Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (“ATF”) in the months after the fire ruled out electrical causes. Id. The plaintiffs allege that, after the ATF report was released, “Sgt. Proctor changed Mr. Byrd’s original fire report from an electrical cause to an undetermined cause.” Id. The plaintiffs believed that the fire was intentionally set, and they claim that Sgt. Proctor shared their belief but “directed them to keep quiet because Defendant Rubin had already told the media the fire’s origin was electrical.” Id. The plaintiffs also allege that -a suspect in the Eastern Market fire was arrested in May 2007 but was never charged. Id. ¶ 25. In December 2007, media reports indicated that the cause of the Eastern Market fire was still publicly considered a “continuing mystery,” citing that ATF had ruled out electrical causes, the DCFEMS officially considered the cause “undetermined,” and no evidence had surfaced of arson. See Elissa Silverman, Eastern Market Fire Still at Issue ATF, D.C. Fire Chief Disagree on Cause, Wash. Post, Dec. 23, 2007, at Cl. The plaintiffs allege, however, that their own investigation “led them to conclude the fire was caused by arson.” Compl. ¶ 25. In the end, an eleven-month investigation into the Eastern Market fire in 2009, conducted by .the DCFEMS and “other experts in the field of fire and forensic investigations” concluded that the fire was “a result of an electrical faulting of the outside electrical circuit supplying the trash compactor.” See Gov’t of the Dist. of Columbia, Fire & Emergency Servs. Dep’t, Supplemental Fire Investigation Report 2 (Dec. 16, 2009), available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpsrv/ metro/documents/easternmarketfire.pdf.. This 2009 report appears to have been the final word on the matter. 2. Permit and Fire Code Violations While the Eastern Market fire investigation was ongoing, in late June or early July 2007, the plaintiffs say that they informed defendant Palmer that Sgt. Proctor “had engaged in misconduct during the inspection of a nightclub, the K St. Lounge, by allowing the business to avoid penalties for clear safety and permit violations.” Compl. ¶ 29. The plaintiffs elaborate in their briefing that the nightclub was “being operated over capacity” and the plaintiffs say that, as a part of the “club zone taskforce,” they “found numerous violations at the club, ultimately totaling $150,000 in fines.” Pis.’ D.C. Opp’n at 22. The plaintiffs further contend, however, that “[Sgt] Proctor’s interference and conduct resulted in the owner paying reduced ... fines of $17,000.” Id. After this incident, the plaintiffs were removed from the club zone task force. See Decl. of Gregory Bowyer (“Bowyer Deck”) ¶ 18, ECF No. 55-2; Deck of Gerald Pennington (“Pennington Deck”) ¶ 22,. ECF No. 55-2. In June 2007, a third incident occurred that the plaintiffs believe was mishandled by the DCFEMS. The DC Fire Marshal’s office received a complaint of illegal use of propane at the Barry Farm’s Goodman-League basketball tournament in Southeast D.C. and sent the plaintiffs to investigate. See Pis.’ D.C. Opp’n at 7; Pis.’ Ex. 3, at 292-93, ECF No. 55-2. The plaintiffs documented that food vendors at the tournament were using propane tanks without the required permit and were using the tanks “in a very reckless and negligent manner” by storing the tanks “a couple of feet from gasoline in.cans ... near children and civilians.” Pis.’ Ex. 3, at 293-94. Initially, the plaintiffs let the vendors off with a warning, notifying them that they needed to obtain the proper permits, but when they returned later, the plaintiffs claim that the same violations persisted. Id. at 294-95. The plaintiffs and the police officer accompanying them decided that arresting the event organizer was imprudent, given the atmosphere of the event, and they tried instead to get his information so that an arrest warrant could be issued later. Id. at 297. When the event organizer refused to provide any information to the plaintiffs, Pennington “signaled] an alert that there was increasing tension as a result of the situation.” Pis.’ D.C. Opp’n at 7. What followed between plaintiff Bowyer and the event organizer remains unclear. The next day, however, the event organizer made a formal complaint about plaintiff Bowyer to defendant Palmer, and Palmer instructed Bowyer to write a “detailed report, point by point, addressing the actions at Barry Farms Basketball tournament.” See Pis.’ Ex. 32, ECF No. 55-2; Pis.’ D.C. Opp’n at 7. The plaintiffs also allege that, after the vendor filed this complaint, defendant Palmer “subject[ed] them to investigations by Internal Affairs and the Office of the Inspector General (‘OIG’)” and “caus[ed] a Metropolitan Police Department detective to issue a baseless warrant for Mr. Bowyer’s arrest.” Compl. ¶29. The plaintiffs allege that Bowyer later met with D.C. Councilmember Phil Mendelson “to discuss the Department’s mishandling of the incident in its decision not to pursue an arrest warrant for [the event organizer] and to raise safety concerns about illegal propane tank usage at Barry Farms.” Pis.’ D.C. Opp’n at 8. 3. The Bridgewater Case The next incident that the plaintiffs claim was mishandled began in July 2007 when a man named Timothy Bridgewater sold illegal fireworks to plaintiff Pennington. See D.C. Facts ¶¶ 11-12. A search of Bridgewater’s vehicle uncovered illegal fireworks as well as a handgun, resulting in his arrest. Id. Although plaintiff Pennington believed that the owner of the fireworks stand should also be arrested because he had directed Pennington to Bridgewater to purchase the illegal fireworks, D.C. Assistant Attorney General (“AAG”) Lynette Collins counseled against such an arrest because she did not believe there was sufficient probable cause. Id. ¶¶ 13-15. An FIU investigator named James Taylor “papered” the investigation with several documents, which included a series of photographs from the scene of the Bridgewater arrest taken by FIU Investigator Scott Ford and Firefighter Keith Byrd. Id. ¶¶ 17-18. The documents collected by Taylor, however, did not include photographs taken by plaintiff Bow-yer at the scene with his personal camera that showed that the firearm in Bridgewater’s vehicle was located in a book bag in the rear seat of the vehicle. See D.C. Facts ¶ 19; Pis.’ D.C. Facts ¶ 19. According to AAG Collins, plaintiff Pennington expressed concerns to her about the way Investigator Taylor was handling the investigation, and Pennington later chose to recuse himself from the Bridge-water case “based on his belief that Taylor should not be involved.” Deck of Lynette Collins (“Collins Deck”) ¶¶ 15-18, 21, ECF No. 49-2. The plaintiffs, however, maintain that Pennington wanted to recuse himself from testifying “because of the underlying merits in the case” and his concerns about “the integrity of the case.” Pis.’ D.C. Facts ¶21. In particular, the plaintiffs say they raised what they believed were a number of “holes in the case,” id. ¶ 22, including: (1) the photographs taken by plaintiff Bowyer of the scene, using his personal camera, were absent from the case file, see Pis.’ Ex. 3, at 127; (2) there were discrepancies with the chain of custody for the handgun found in Bridgewater’s car, see id. at 128; and (3) “the fireworks, cash and book bag in the case were missing from the evidence locker,” Pis.’ D.C. Facts ¶ 31. The Assistant United States Attorney (“AUSA”) assigned to prosecute Bridgewater, Matt Graves, eventually decided to dismiss the case. Collins Decl. ¶ 20; Pis.’ D.C. Opp’n at 9. AAG Collins avers that AUSA Graves indicated to her that he decided to dismiss the charges against Bridgewater “because of infighting involving FIU investigator Pennington and the lack of cooperation between FIU investigators.” Collins Deck ¶ 22. The plaintiffs, however, contend that “it is highly likely that AUSA Graves dismissed the charges because of the holes in the case that Investigator Pennington brought to his attention.” Pis.’D.C. Facts ¶ 22. Despite the federal government’s decision not to prosecute, the D.C. Office of the Attorney General (“OAG”) decided to pursue criminal charges of its own against Bridgewater, and AAG Collins was assigned to prosecute the case. Collins Deck ¶¶ 23-24. That trial began on February 20, 2008. Id. ¶27. AAG Collins avers that she was unaware of the photographs taken by plaintiff Bowyer on his personal camera at the scene of Bridgewater’s arrest. Id. ¶ 39. The plaintiffs dispute this statement and contend that “AAG Collins was aware of the existence of Plaintiff Bowyer’s photographs but was attempting to prosecute the Bridgewater case without this evidence.” Pis.’ D.C. Facts ¶ 29. Regardless, in a pretrial hearing in the Bridgewater case, defense counsel notified the court that the government had failed to disclose the photographs taken by plaintiff Bowyer. Collins Deck ¶ 34. AAG Collins avers that, in a break during this same pretrial hearing, plaintiff Bowyer “disclosed to [her], for the first time, that he had used his personal camera to take photos of the scene of the Bridgewater offense.” Id. ¶ 42. The photographs were turned over to defense counsel, but the court also conducted a hearing on the issue of the photographs. See id. ¶¶ 43, 45. At the hearing, plaintiff Bowyer “testified that he had previously informed [AAG Collins], his superiors and AUSA Graves of the photographs of the scene taken by him.” Id. ¶ 46. The parties dispute the veracity of plaintiff Bowyer’s testimony in the Bridgewater case regarding the photographs. The plaintiffs insist that the hearing testimony was truthful, and plaintiff Bowyer even filed an ethics complaint against AAG Collins with the D.C. Bar Counsel for what the plaintiffs characterize as “her unethical conduct during the Bridgewater trial and falsely accusing [Bowyer] of perjury.” Pis.’ D.C. Facts ¶ 37. The defendants and AAG Collins, however, insist that the testimony was false. After the hearing testimony was given, AAG Collins filed a complaint about plaintiff Bowyer with AAG Barbara Chesser and AAG Collins’s superior at the OAG, Deputy Attorney General Robert Hildum. See D.C. Facts ¶¶ 35, 39. Based on AAG Collins’s complaints and similar complaints from another prosecutor in a separate case discussed below, the OAG decided-to bar both of the plaintiffs from testifying in. future OAG prosecutions (known as being placed on the “Lewis List”), and Hildum informed defendant Rubin of this decision in person on August 21, 2008 and via letters dated October 27-28, 2008. See Pis.’ D.C. Facts ¶ 39; Decl. of Dennis L. Rubin (“Rubin Décl.”) ¶¶ 7-13, ECF No. 59-3; see also Pis.’ Exs. 34-35, ECF No. 55-2. 4. The K.A. Case The final investigation relevant to the plaintiffs’ claims was of a house fire that occurred on June 18, 2008 at 317 L Street N.E. in Washington D.C. See D.C. Facts ¶¶ 40, 41. The fire was at the house of a juvenile, K.A. Id. ¶ 41. The plaintiffs allege that “DCFEMS had initially assigned an inexperienced investigator to head up the fire investigation,” but “[a]fter the fire attracted public attention, Defendant Palmer assigned Mr. Bowyer as the lead follow-up investigator in order to close the case quickly.” Compl. ¶ 33. Plaintiff Bowyer testified in his deposition that the investigator who had done the origin-and-cause investigation, Taunja Kittrell, “botched” the investigation because she “hadn’t had the basic fire investigation [training].” Pis.’ Ex. 3, at 188-89. As a result of Kittrell’s alleged lack of training, according to plaintiff Bowyer, “[s]he wasn’t aware of the area of origin,” she “wasn’t aware of the standard methodology for investigating fires,” and she “didn’t understand basic fire dynamics.” Id. at 190. Plaintiff Bowyer further testified that, while at the scene of the fire, he observed that citizens were being allowed to walk in and out of the scene, items and debris were improperly removed from the scene while the investigation was taking place, evidence was contaminated after it was removed from the house, and the scene was not photographed properly. See id. at 192-95. Plaintiff Bowyer says that he notified defendant Palmer, after the completion of the origin-and-cause investigation by Firefighter Kittrell, that “we may have problems with the arson case based on the botched investigation.” Id. at 188. After the initial origin-and-cause investigation by Kittrell, the plaintiffs were assigned to conduct the follow-up investigation. See Compl. ¶ 33. According to AAG Mary O’Connor, who prosecuted the K.A. case, K.A. confessed twice to setting the fire: once when the plaintiffs interviewed K.A. at K.A.’s home and once when K.A. was being questioned at the Youth Division. See Decl. of Mary O’Connor (“O’Connor Decl.”) ¶5, ECF No. 49-2. The plaintiffs, however, maintain that “[t]he Plaintiffs only obtained one confession at the Youth Division” and “[a]ny statements made at K.A.’s home were admissions.” Pis.’ D.C. Facts ¶ 45. In any event, K.A. moved to suppress the confession, and both of the plaintiffs testified at the suppression hearing: plaintiff Pennington for the government, and plaintiff Bowyer for the defense. See O’Connor Decl. ¶¶ 9-10. The defendants and AAG O’Connor maintain that the testimony at the suppression hearing established that K.A. asked for an attorney while being questioned by the plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs continued to question K.A. despite his requests for an attorney. See D.C. Facts ¶¶ 52-53; O’Connor Decl. ¶¶ 12-13. The plaintiffs concede that “[djuring K.A.’s responses to questions he would refer to his lawyer,” but contend that K.A. “never invoked his right to counsel.” Pis.’ D.C. Facts ¶ 52. Regardless, the parties agree that the presiding judge suppressed K.A.’s confession. See id. ¶ 55; D.C. Facts ¶ 55. The plaintiffs deny, however, the defendants’ and AAG O’Connor’s statements that the basis for the suppression was that the presiding judge determined that the plaintiffs had violated KA.’s Miranda rights. See Pis.’ D.C. Facts ¶ 55; see also D.C. Facts ¶ 55; O’Connor Decl. ¶ 14. Rather, the plaintiffs maintain that “[i]t was not the statements made by the Plaintiffs that caused the evidence to be suppressed but rather the lack of evidence presented by AAG O’Con-nor at trial.” Pis.’ D.C. Facts ¶ 55. On June 21, 2008, after the plaintiffs had interviewed K.A., AAG Chesser informed the plaintiffs that they were no longer assigned to the K.A. case because they had been put on the Lewis List by the OAG, as discussed above. See Pis.’ Ex. 4, at 180; Pis.’ Ex. 52, ECF No. 55-2; Pis.’ D.C. Opp’n at 11. At trial in August 2008, plaintiff Bowyer was subpoenaed to testify on behalf of the defense as “an expert with regards to general fire origin and cause.” Pis.’ D.C. Facts ¶ 56; O’Connor Decl. ¶ 15. According to the defendants and AAG O’Connor, plaintiff Bowyer “testified that he could not determine how the fire was started,” a conclusion that was inconsistent with a standard form (PD 379) signed by plaintiffs Bowyer and Pennington, which stated that “ ‘scene investigations revealed that fire was intentionally set.’ ” D.C. Facts ¶¶ 57-59; O’Connor Decl. ¶¶ 16-18. The plaintiffs contend, however, that plaintiff Bowyer did not testify as the defendants describe because Bowyer “did not do the origin and cause investigation” and thus “he did not change his determination because he did not make a determination in the first place and was not asked to do so.” Pis.’ D.C. Facts ¶¶ 57, 60. Further, although the plaintiffs do not appear to contest the contents of the PD 379 form or that they signed that form, they contend instead that “Bowyer signed the PD-379 because he was ordered to do so by Defendant Palmer.” Id. ¶ 58. In the end, the District’s arson prosecution of K.A. was unsuccessful, O’Connor Decl. ¶ 20, and formal disciplinary charges were subsequently filed against plaintiff Bowyer for his testimony. The charges stated, inter alia^ that the “statements you made at trial directly contradict the PD 379 that you completed and signed on June 20, 2008, and therefore, constitutes perjury.” Pis.’ Ex. 43, at 5, ECF No. 55-2. C. Alleged Retaliation by DCFEMS The plaintiffs assert that the defendants retaliated against them after they spoke out about the instances of alleged misconduct and incompetence discussed above, and it is this alleged retaliation that is the nub of the plaintiffs’ case. First and most generally, the plaintiffs contend that, as they began to speak out in 2007 about issues of racial discrimination, “botched” investigations, and other perceived misconduct within the DCFEMS, they were subjected to a “hostile work environment.” See Compl. ¶¶20, 22, 28, 81, 42; Pis.’ D.C. Opp’n at 4, 12; Bowyer Decl. ¶ 17; Pennington Deck ¶ 21. According to the plaintiffs, this hostile work environment consisted of a racially divided FIU and the isolation of the plaintiffs from the rest of the Unit based on perceived disloyalty. See Compl. ¶¶ 20, 31. According to the Complaint, “[t]he retaliation against Plaintiffs began in the early spring of 2007 when Defendant Rubin promoted Defendant Palmer to the position of Fire Marshak” Compl. ¶ 18. At that time, the plaintiffs say that they informed defendant Palmer about Sgt. Proctor helping white firefighters cheat on the fire investigator exam “in furtherance of the Department’s racially discriminatory policy to increase the numbers of white fire investigators regardless of their qualifications.” Id.; see also Pis.’ Ex. 6, at 312, ECF No. 55-2. On March 26, 2007, after the plaintiffs say they had notified defendant Palmer about Sgt. Proctor’s alleged cheating, the plaintiffs claim that Lt. Duck removed them from the Burned Vehicle Initiative (“BVI”), a program established by the plaintiffs in January 2007 after they had noticed a rise in vehicle fires. Pis.’ D.C. Opp’n at 5, 28; see also Pis.’ Ex. 2 ¶ 6, ECF No. 55-2. Lt. Duck took over the BVI, and according to the plaintiffs he “reassigned these investigations to the white firefighters who were joining FIU.” Compl. ¶ 19. Next, the plaintiffs contend that, after they “raised concerns” about the origin- and-cause investigation for the Eastern Market fire on April 30, 2007 and the alleged manipulation of records by Lt. Duck for the purpose of obtaining new equipment for the FIU in June 2007, the defendants changed the plaintiffs’ shift structure in retaliation. Pis.’ D.C. Opp’n at 4, 28; Pis.’ Ex. 1 ¶ 18, ECF No. 55-2. In particular, on June 16, 2007, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants changed their work schedule “from a Monday-Friday day shift to a 24 hours on, 72 hours off schedule.” Compl. ¶ 29; see also Pis.’ D.C. Opp’n at 28. Although defendant Palmer maintains that this shift change applied to the entire FIU “[t]o bring it in line with the rest of the department” because of payroll and overtime issues, Defs.’ Ex. O at 293, ECF No. 49-2, the plaintiffs contend that this shift change was retaliatory and that it “made it virtually impossible to conduct any investigations,” Compl. ¶ 29. The plaintiffs also say that in September 2007 they complained to their superiors in the FIU about Lt. Duck’s alleged preferential treatment toward white firefighters and his alleged practice of fomenting a racial divide in the FIU by encouraging white firefighters to become loyal to his “team” rather than that of the African American firefighters. See id. ¶ 21; Pis.’ D.C. Opp’n at 4; Pis.’ Ex. 6, at 173-75. In addition to alleging that Lt. Duck ignored their complaints, Compl. ¶ 21, the plaintiffs also contend that, after they made these complaints, (1) “the FIU began to deny Plaintiffs the opportunity to attend training courses that other white FIU members received;” (2) “[Lt.] Duck assigned fire investigations to inexperienced white investigators instead of the Plaintiffs;” and (3) “[Lt.] Duck continued to pressure white investigators to stop associating with ‘Pennington’s team’ and instead stay loyal to his ‘team,’ ” Pis.’ D.C. Opp’n at 4-5. For his part, defendant Palmer explained in his deposition that a member of the department other than the plaintiffs complained to him about Lt. Duck’s “team” mentality, and as a result Palmer instructed Lt. Duck to refrain from speaking in those terms because firefighters may take it the wrong way. See Pis.’ Ex. 6, at 173-75. According to Palmer, after he addressed the matter with Lt. Duck, the issue never came to his attention again. See id. at 175. In the first week of November 2007, as discussed above, the plaintiffs allege that they both complained about what they perceived to be numerous problems with the Bridgewater fireworks case. See Compl. ¶ 30; Pis.’ D.C. Opp’n at 29; Pennington Decl. ¶¶ 54, 56-57; Pis.’ Ex. 3, at 184. Less than a week later, on November 5, 2007, plaintiff Pennington says that defendant Palmer warned him not to recuse himself from the case or else he would face disciplinary action. See Pis.’ Ex. 4, at 140. A short time after the plaintiffs say they complained about the Bridgewater case, they also claim that (1) they were both removed from all follow-up investigations; (2) defendant Palmer revoked their take-home car privileges, call-back privileges, and computers with law enforcement capabilities; and (3) they were moved to an office space where the K-9 unit dogs were housed. See Compl. ¶ 30; Pis.’ D.C. Opp’n at 9, 29; Pis.’ Ex. 3, at 272; Pis.’ Ex. 4, at 266-67. The plaintiffs assert that the defendants took these actions in retaliation for the plaintiffs raising concerns about the Bridgewater case. See Pis.’ D.C. Opp’n at '29. Related to the Bridgewater fireworks case as well as the K.A. arson case, the plaintiffs claim that AAG Collins “falsely reported” that the plaintiffs had perjured themselves in February 2008, which led to the plaintiffs being place on the Lewis List. See Compl. ¶¶ 31, 35; see also Pis.’ Exs. 34-35. The plaintiffs contend that ÁAG Collins’s report against the plaintiffs was in retaliation for the unsuccessful prosecution in the Bridgewater case, caused in part by what' the plaintiffs say was their truthful testimony. See Compl. ¶ 31. Additionally, the plaintiffs allege that “the false accusation and ensuing investigation caused their working environment in the Department to grow even more hostile” and “DCFEMS management encouraged these false rumors and unfounded criticisms in an effort to isolate Plaintiffs and to damage their reputations.” Id. As discussed above, the plaintiffs also had disciplinary charges brought against them in October 2008 after their participation in the K.A. case, which they say focused “on the disingenuous assertions that [the plaintiffs] had somehow violated K.A.’s rights,” Pennington Decl, ¶ 93, and the plaintiffs claim that these charges were also retaliatory, see Compl.. ¶ 41. The plaintiffs further claim that they were retaliated against for their actions ih the K.A. and Bridgewater cases when they were reassigned to the Community Service Unit (“CSU”) on August 21, 2008. See Compl. ¶ 39. In the CSU, the plaintiffs’ “duties consist of such menial tasks ... as checking fire hydrants, installing batteries in smoke detectors, and passing out snacks to firefighters at fire scenes.” Id. The plaintiffs allege that their transfer to the CSU was in retaliation for either testifying in the K.A. arson case or for filing complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), or both, see Pis.’ D.C. Opp’n at 29-30, but the defendants maintain that the plaintiffs were transferred because the OAG had refused to rely upon or call the plaintiffs as witnesses and therefore they were unable to perform an “essential part of [their] job duties” as fire investigators, see Rubin Decl. ¶¶ 8-15. After the plaintiffs were transferred to the CSU, they began speaking about their frustrations to people outside of the DCFEMs. In the days after they were transferred to the CSU, the plaintiffs allege that plaintiff Bowyer e-mailed then Mayor Adrian Fenty, City Administrator Dan Tangherlini, and City Council Chairman Vincent Gray, complaining about race discrimination within the FIU and specifically complaining that the plaintiffs had been retaliated against for filing EEOC complaints. See Compl. ¶ 40. The plaintiffs also gave interviews to WJLA-TV, the local ABC News affiliate in the District, in which they accused the DCFEMS of “demoting] them for exposing the Department’s botched fire investigations.” See id. ¶42. WJLA originally aired the story on November 11, 2008 and aired a follow-up story on November 26, 2008 that reported specifically on the plaintiffs’ allegations that the DCFEMS was assigning unqualified investigators to investigate fires in the District. Id. In addition to these public communications, the plaintiffs also participated in investigatory interviews with the D.C. Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”) in January 2009, wherein they “set forth in detail their allegations of botched fire investigations, racial discrimination, retaliation against whistleblowers, and additional unlawful or improper conduct on the part of DCFEMS officials.” Pis.’ D.C. Opp’n at 13; see also Pis.’ Ex. 55, ECF No. 55-2 (memoranda of plaintiffs’ interviews with OIG). After these communications were made, a new set of disciplinary charges was brought against plaintiff Pennington on February 5, 2009, for allegedly misrepresenting himself as a Certified Fire Investigator on a fire investigation record, see Pis.’ Ex. 47, ECF No. 55-2, and the plaintiffs also allege that a fellow firefighter was “assigned to CSU to monitor [the plaintiffs] and report on their activities with the goal of developing negative information that can be used to discipline ... them or terminate their employment,” Compl. ¶ 45; Bowyer Deck ¶ 77; Pennington Deck ¶ 73. Following all of these events, the plaintiffs filed their three-count complaint in the instant action on February 19, 2009. First, the plaintiffs claim that, during the course of the events described above, they made “protected disclosures” to their.superiors within the DCFEMS, prosecutors in the OAG and AUSA offices, the D.C. Council, and the media “concerning gross mismanagement, gross misuse or waste of public resources or funds, abuse of authority in connection with the administration of a public program, and violations of federal and local laws and DCFEMS rules.” Compl. ¶ 53. The plaintiffs allege that they were retaliated against by the District for making these “protected disclosures” in violation of the DCWPA. Id. ¶ 54. The plaintiffs also allege two causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of their free speech rights under the First Amendment and their contractual rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. In their First Amendment claim, the plaintiffs contend that they spoke as citizens on matters of public concern (e.g., mismanagement of fire investigations), and that “Defendants took retaliatory actions against Plaintiffs for their exercise of their First Amendment rights.” Id. ¶¶ 68-71. In their § 1981 claim, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants “intentionally took adverse employment actions against Plaintiffs because of Plaintiffs’ race and because of their opposition to racial discrimination ..., which deprived Plaintiffs of their rights to contract on the same basis as white persons.” Id. ¶ 59. After almost two years of discovery, including seven extensions of the discovery period, pending before the Court are motions for summary judgment by each of the defendants. For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants those motions. II. LEGAL STANDARD Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 provides that summary judgment shall be granted “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). Summary judgment is properly granted against a party who, “after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, ... fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The burden is on the moving party to demonstrate that there is an “absence of a genuine issue of material fact” in dispute. Id. at 323,106 S.Ct. 2548. In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the Court must draw all justifiable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party and shall accept the nonmoving party’s evidence as true. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). The Court is only required to consider the materials explicitly cited by the parties, but may on its- own accord consider “other materials in the record.” Fed.R.Cjv.P. 56(c)(3). For a •factual dispute to be “genuine,” the non-moving party must establish more than “[t]he mere existence of a scintilla of evidence” in support of its position, Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 252, 106 S.Ct. 2505, and cannot rely on “mere allegations” or conclusory statements, see Veitch v. England, 471 F.3d 124, 134 (D.C.Cir.2006); Greene v. Dalton, 164 F.3d 671, 675 (D.C.Cir. 1999); Harding v. Gray, 9 F.3d 150, 154 (D.C.Cir.1993); accord Fed.R.CivP. 56(e). Rather, the nonmoving party must present specific facts that would enable a reasonable jury to find in its favor. See, e.g., Fed.R.Cxv.P. 56(c)(1). If the evidence “is merely colorable, or' is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.” Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 249-50, 106 S.Ct. 2505 (citations omitted). “[A] complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.” Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548. In. that situation, “[t]he moving party is ‘entitled to judgment as a matter of law’ because the nonmoving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of her case with respect to which she has the burden of proof.” Id. Notably, “[s]elf-serving testimony does not create genuine issues of material fact, especially where that very testimony suggests that corroborating evidence should be readily available.” Fields v. Office of Johnson, 520 F.Supp.2d 101, 105 (D.D.C.2007). Additionally, “on summary judgment, statements that are impermissible hearsay or that are not based on personal knowledge are precluded from consideration by the Court.” Riggsbee v. Diversity Servs., Inc., 637 F.Supp.2d 39, 46 (D.D.C.2009); accord Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)(4) (“An affidavit or declaration used to support or oppose a motion must be made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant or declarant is competent to testify on the matters stated.”); Gleklen v. Democratic Cong. Campaign Comm., Inc., 199 F.3d 1365, 1369 (D.C.Cir. 2000) (holding that “[v]erdicts cannot rest on inadmissible evidence” and “sheer hearsay ... therefore counts for nothing” at summary judgment). “Evaluating whether evidence offered at summary judgment is sufficient to send a case to the jury,” however, “is as much art as science.” Estate of Parsons v. Palestinian Auth., 651 F.3d 118, 123 (D.C.Cir.2011). Particularly in a case such as this where non-moving parties rely almost entirely upon their own uncorroborated statements in depositions, declarations, and interrogatory responses to create a genuine issue of material fact, the Court must carefully assess whether the plaintiffs’ evidence is “merely colorable,” Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, or whether “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party,” id. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. On the one hand, the Court must accept all of the non-movants’ evidence as true and give them the benefit of all reasonable inferences. See id. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505. On the other hand, a nonmovant’s allegations that are “generalized, conclusory and uncorroborated by any evidence other than the [non-movant’s] own deposition testimony” are “insufficient to establish a triable issue of fact” — at least where the nature of the purported factual dispute reasonably suggests that corroborating evidence should be available. See Akridge v. Gallaudet Univ., 729 F.Supp.2d 172, 183 (D.D.C.2010); see also Gen. Elec. Co. v. Jackson, 595 F.Supp.2d 8, 36 (D.D.C.2009) (observing that when a “declaration is self-serving and uncorroborated” it is “of little value at the summary judgment stage”). III. DISCUSSION As the discussion of the factual background above indicates, it is clear that the plaintiffs had during the time period in question, and perhaps continue to have, a tumultuous relationship with their colleagues and superiors. The plaintiffs’ frustration with the way the DCFEMS was managed and the way their superiors handled the plaintiffs’ professional concerns is manifest in their myriad allegations. Indeed, workplaces can be breeding grounds for hurt feelings, disagreements, and tension, and it is all the more unfortunate that a municipal fire department would fall prey to such dysfunction because its mission should remain focused on public safety, rather than being sidetracked with intra-workplace squabbles. Nevertheless, there is a distinct separation — sometimes a sliver and sometimes a gulf — between workplace problems that present colorable legal claims and those that reflect the friction of strong disagreements. As the discussion below makes plain, the factual record in this case is replete with significant gaps and omissions, which makes it difficult to discern on which side of that separation the plaintiffs’ claims lay. In the final calculus, however, the gaps and omissions in the summary judgment record are simply too pervasive to allow the plaintiffs’ claims to move forward. The plaintiffs make three claims for relief, each of which is predicated upon a theory of protected speech by the plaintiffs that was met with retaliatory conduct by the defendants. The Court will first discuss the plaintiffs’ claim under the D.C. Whistleblower Protection Act, which is brought only against the District, before assessing the plaintiffs two causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which are brought against all three defendants. A. Whistleblower Claim The D.C. Whistleblower Protection Act (“DCWPA”) is intended to ensure that “employees of the District government are free to report waste, fraud, abuse of authority, violations of law, or threats to public health or safety without fear of retaliation or reprisal.” D.C. Code § 1-616.11 (1998). Hence, at the time the plaintiffs’ claims arose, the DCWPA provided that “[a] supervisor shall not threaten to take or take a prohibited personnel action or otherwise retaliate against an employee because of the employee’s protected disclosure.” Id. § 1-616.13. The Act defined (and continues to define) “prohibited personnel action” broadly as, inter alia, “recommended, threatened, or actual termination, demotion, suspension, or reprimand; involuntary transfer, reassignment, or detail; ... or retaliating in any other manner against an employee because that employee makes a protected disclosure.” Id. § l-616.12(a)(5). The Act further defined a “protected disclosure” as: any disclosure of information, not specifically prohibited by statute, by an employee to a supervisor or a public body that the employee reasonably believes evidences: (A)Gross mismanagement; (B) Gross misuse or waste of public resources or funds; (C) Abuse of authority in connection with the administration of a public program or the execution of a public contract; (D) A violation of a federal, state, or local law, rule, or regulation ....; or (E) A substantial and specific danger to the public health and safety. Id. § l-616.12(a)(6). Finally, the Act provided that: In a civil action ... once it has been demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that an activity proscribed by [§ 1-616.13] was a contributing factor in the alleged prohibited personnel action against 'an employee, the burden of proof shall be on the employing District agency to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the alleged action would have occurred for legitimate, independent reasons even if the employee had not engaged in activities protected by this section. Id. § 1 — 616.14(b). A “contributing factor” means “any factor which, alone or in connection with other factors, tends to affect in any way the outcome of the decision.” Id. § l-616.12(a)(2). Hence, to make out a prima facie case under the DCWPA, a plaintiff must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, (1) a “protected disclosure”; (2) a “prohibited personnel action”; and (3) a causal connection between the protected disclosure and the prohibited personnel action, such that the protected disclosure was at least a “contributing factor” in. the personnel action. See, e.g., Hawkins v. Boone, 786 F.Supp.2d 328, 333 (D.D.C.2011); D.C. Code § l-616.14(b) (1998). As the foregoing recitation of the factual background attests, the plaintiffs aver a laundry list of various disclosures and complaints that they made within and outside the DCFEMS, and they likewise cite a laundry list of actions by the District that they claim were retaliatory. The critical task for the plaintiffs’ DCWPA claim, however, is to locate disclosures that are protected by the DCWPA and which also have a causal connection to a prohibited personal action taken by the District. The plaintiffs simplify this exercise by focusing their arguments on four sets of disclosures and personnel actions that they argue establish a prima facie case under the DCWPA. See Pis.’ D.C. Opp’n at 27-30. 1. Prohibited Personnel Actions The plaintiffs organize their DCWPA argument around four separate personnel actions by the District: (1) removing the plaintiffs from the Burned Vehicle Unit (“BVI”); (2) changing the plaintiffs’ schedule from a Monday-Friday daytime schedule to a 24-hour on-duty/72-hour off-duty schedule; (3) taking away the plaintiffs’ take-home car privileges and call-back privileges and moving them to an office space that housed the K-9 unit; and (4) reassigning the plaintiffs to the Community Service Unit (“CSU”). See id. Although the parties have elected not to brief this issue, the second personnel action listed above (changing the plaintiffs’ schedule) does not qualify as a “prohibited personnel action” under the DCWPA, and therefore it cannot serve as the basis for a prima facie case. The DCWPA’s definition of “prohibited personnel action,” though broadly drawn, does not encompass a mere change in an employee’s schedule that does not result in a material or tangible change in the employee’s privileges, benefits, pay, or work assignments. See D.C. Code § 1-616.12(a)(5) (1998). The statute does not expressly contemplate schedule changes as “prohibited personnel actions,” and thus a schedule change cannot be considered a prohibited personnel action unless it could be reasonably construed as a “demotion,” “reprimand,” “reassignment,” or “transfer,” i.e., a materially adverse change in employment. Id.; see, e.g., Williams v. District of Columbia^ 825 F.Supp.2d 88, 98 (D.D.C.2011) (“[A]n employee may recover under the DCWPA only for those personnel actions that might well have dissuaded a reasonable employee in the plaintiffs position from making a protected disclosure.”). Courts have recognized that schedule changes can qualify as materially adverse personnel actions when the context of the schedule change exacts an identifiable cost on the employee, see, e.g., Caudle v. District of Columbia, 804 F.Supp.2d 32, 44 (D.D.C.2011) (holding that “the denial of a requested schedule change” was materially adverse because it “prevented [the plaintiff] from being at home with her school-age daughter”), or where the schedule change results in fewer hours, lower pay, or different job responsibilities, see Than v. Radio Free Asia, 496 F.Supp.2d 38, 49 (D.D.C.2007) (“[A] reasonable employee would consider that a reduction in work hours (and the resulting reduction in pay) ... to be material adverse actions.”); Stone-Clark v. Blackhawk, Inc., 460 F.Supp.2d 91, 97 (D.D.C.2006) (schedule change was adverse where the change “dramatically reduced [plaintiffs] work hours and job responsibilities by removing her from the schedule completely”). The plaintiffs, however, have not demonstrated that the change from a Monday-Friday daytime schedule to a 24-hour on-duty/72hour off-duty schedule, which they concede was applied across the DCFEMS, see Def. D.C.’s Reply in Supp. Mot. for Summ. J. (“D.C. Reply”) at 13, ECF No. 59, would dissuade a reasonable employee from making a protected disclosure. The plaintiffs argue that the scheduling change “made it significantly more difficult to conduct the investigations to which they were assigned,” Pis.’ D.C. Opp’n at 49, but they do not specify how their work was adversely impacted, much less present evidence to support such an adverse impact. Although a 24 hours on-duty, 72 hours off-duty schedule might in some circumstances make investigating fires more difficult, the plaintiffs have failed to offer any evidence of whether that difficulty was merely minimal or whether, as they claim, it rose to the level of being materially adverse. Since the plaintiffs have presented no evidence that their schedule change “might well have dissuaded a reasonable employee in the plaintiffs position from making a protected disclosure,” Williams, 825 F.Supp.2d at 98, the schedule change does not qualify as a “prohibited personnel action” under the DCWPA. The other three personnel actions put forth by the plaintiffs, however, qualify as “prohibited personnel actions” under the DCWPA because they involve either “involuntary transfer[s]” or the removal of material employment privileges. See D.C. Code. § 1 — 616.12(a)(5) (1998). Therefore, the Court must next assess whether the plaintiffs, have established any “protected disclosures” that could have been “contributing factors” to these prohibited personnel actions. 2. Protected Disclosures and Causal Connection The D.C. Court of Appeals has held that, in order for an employee’s disclosure to be protected under the DCWPA, “ ‘an employee must disclose such serious errors by the agency that a conclusion the agency erred is not debatable among reasonable people.’ ” Wilburn v. District of Columbia, 957 A.2d 921, 925 (D.C.2008) (quoting White v. Dep’t of the Air Force, 391 F.3d 1377, 1382 (Fed.Cir.2004)). No tably, the DCWPA does not require that an employee disclose actual gross mismanagement or misconduct. Rather, a protected disclosure “is one that the employee ‘reasonably believes’ evidences one or more of the circumstances delineated in D.C. Code [§ l-616.12(a)(6)(A)-(E) (1998) ].” Id. The “proper test” for determining whether a belief is reasonable is to ask whether “a disinterested observer with knowledge of the essential facts known to and readily ascertainable by the employee [could] reasonably conclude that the actions of the government evidence [illegality, gross mismanagement, etc.].” Zirkle v. District of Columbia, 830 A.2d 1250, 1259-60 (D.C.2003) (quoting Lachance v. White, 174 F.3d 1378, 1381 (Fed.Cir.1999)). In other words, “[a] purely subjective perspective of an employee is not sufficient even if shared by other employees” because the DCWPA “is not a weapon in arguments over policy or a shield for insubordinate conduct.” Id. (quoting La-chance, 174 F.3d at 1381). a) Disclosure of Cheating Allegations The plaintiffs first argue that their alleged disclosure “that [Sgt.] Proctor had abused his authority to help white firefighters cheat on the investigator’s examination in early spring 2007” was a contributing factor in the decision to remove the plaintiffs from the BVI on March 26, 2007. See Pis.’ D.C. Opp’n at 28. The plaintiffs correctly contend that “actively assisting white firefighters to help them pass the required exam,” to the exclusion and detriment of African American firefighters, could reasonably be perceived as illegal behavior under Title VII and the D.C. Human Rights Act. See id. at 19. Even assuming that the plaintiffs are correct, however, the disclosure of these allegations by the plaintiff does not protect them because the record demonstrates that, if indeed the plaintiffs ever raised these allegations, the plaintiffs were not the ones who raised the allegations in the first instance. The defendants have presented an undisputed, sworn declaration by Sgt. Proctor, which states that cheating allegations were first raised by a different firefighter in an EEO complaint, not by the plaintiffs. See Deck of Phillip Proctor (“Proctor Deck”) ¶¶ 10-11, ECF No. 59-3. It was this other firefighter’s allegations that led to an investigation of Sgt. Proctor, see id. ¶ 16, and the plaintiffs only learned of these allegations after Sgt. Proctor told them, id. ¶¶ 14-15. Although the plaintiffs allege that they were the ones who raised the cheating allegations, they have presented no evidence to demonstrate that crucial fact, nor have they contested the substance of the Proctor Declaration, which contradicts the plaintiffs’ unsupported assertions. Therefore, the cheating allegations against Sgt. Proctor do not qualify as a protected disclosure in the instant action because the plaintiffs were not the ones to raise those allegations in the first instance, and thus the proverbial whistle had already been blown before the plaintiffs ever learned of the cheating allegations. See Wilburn, 957 A.2d at 925-26 (Pre-2010 version of DCWPA only protects disclosures of information “that was not already known” (citing Meuwissen v. Dep’t of the Interior, 234 F.3d 9, 13 (Fed.Cir.2000))). b) Disclosure of Problems with the Bridgewater Case Next, the plaintiffs argue that their alleged disclosure to AUSA Matt Graves of purported problems with the Bridgewater fireworks investigation was a contributing factor in the decision to take away the plaintiffs’ take-home car privileges and call-back privileges and to reassign them to an office space that housed the K-9 unit. See Pis.’ D.C. Opp’n at 29. The plaintiffs say that they informed AUSA Graves that the “FIU had lost the seized fireworks and money, and that the photographs Graves had did not depict the scene properly,” and they argue that a reasonable person would view this alleged loss of evidence in a criminal case as “blatant gross mismanagement.” Id. at 24. The plaintiffs are correct that the apparent mishandling and loss of material evidence in a criminal case qualifies as “gross mismanagement” under the DCWPA. See, e.g., Mentzer v. Lanier, 677 F.Supp.2d 242, 250 (D.D.C.2010) (interpreting “gross mismanagement” 'in DCWPA to mean “‘a management action or inaction which creates a substantial risk of significant adverse impact upon the agency’s ability to accomplish its mission’ ” (quoting Kavanagh v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 176 Fed.Appx. 133, 135 (Fed.Cir.2006))). Yet, the plaintiffs offer no evidence (other than the characterizations in their self-serving and uncorroborated deposition testimony) to establish the' nature of their disclosures to AUSA Graves. See Pis.’ D.C. Opp’n at 24-25, 29. As the D.C. Court of Appeals has cautioned: “ ‘[T]he basis for determining the nature of ... charges’ that a putative whistleblower has made ‘are the statements ... in [his] complaint’ to a supervisor or to a public body, ‘not [his] subsequent characterization of those statements’ in litigation.” Wilburn, 957 A.2d at 925 (quoting Ward v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd., 981 F.2d 521, 523-28 (Fed.Cir.1992)). AAG Collins disputes that any evidence was lost or destroyed at all in the Bridgewater fireworks case, see Collins Decl. ¶ 41, and the plaintiffs