Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM OPINION Granting Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment; Denying as Moot Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, United States District Judge I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs in this case are former employees of the District of Columbia Child and Family Services Agency who were terminated in a broad layoff of agency staff. In this putative class action lawsuit, Plaintiffs allege that their termination wqs the result of a discriminatory downsizing of the agency’s workforce. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that the firings, referred tó as a reduction in force, were the result of discrimination based on both race and age. Plaintiffs also allege that the agency’s imposition of a bachelor’s degree requirement for the newly created Family Social Worker position was discriminatory as to both race and age. After extended litigation, including the Court’s resolution of initial dispositive motions and fact and expert discovery by the parties, the Court now considers two pending motions. First, Plaintiffs have renewed their motion for class certification. See Pis.’ Mot. Class Certification (“Mot Class Certification”), ECF No. 144. Second, the District of Columbia has moved for summary judgment. See Def.’s Mot. Summ. J. (“Mot. Summ. J.”), ECF No. 146. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will grant the District of Columbia’s motion for summary judgment. Because the Court grants summary judgment for the District on all remaining claims, the Court does not need to reach Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Thus, the Court denies that motion as moot. II. BACKGROUND The Court will begin with a description of the facts giving rise to the parties’, dispute and then turn to the procedural history of this case. A. Factual Background 1. The Child and Family Services Agency The District of Columbia Child and Family Services Agency (“CFSA”) is entrusted with protecting the safety, permanence, and well-being of abused and neglected children and with providing services to struggling families. See Def.’s Statement Undisputed Material Facts (“Def.’s Material Facts”) ¶ 1, ECF No. 146-2. Although the parties dispute the exact organizational structure of CFSA during the relevant time period, compare id. ¶¶2, 5 with Pis.’ Statement Disputed Material Facts (“Pis.’ Disputed Facts”) at 2-3, ECF No. 148-1, it is undisputed that many of CFSA’s “frontline functions” are led by the Office of Agency Programs, including investigating reports of child abuse and neglect, temporarily removing children from dangerous situations, and providing direct case management. See Def.’s Material Facts ¶ 3; Pis.’ Disputed Facts at 1. District of Columbia law and the consent decree entered in the class action LaShawn v. Bowser mandate the provision of many of these services. See Defi’s Material Facts ¶ 4; Pis.’ Disputed Facts at 1; see also LaShawn v. Bowser, No. 89-1754 (D.D.C. Feb. 27, 2007), ECF No. 864 (order approving Amended Implementation Plan). CFSA experienced significant budgetary pressure in fiscal years 2010 and 2011. In FY 2010 (October 1, 2009 to September 30, 2010), CFSA’s budget decreased by $25.3 million from the prior year. See Def.’s Material Facts ¶7. The FY 2010 budget reduced the number of full-time employees from 940 to 892. See id. ¶ 8. In FY 2011, CFSA’s budget was reduced by $12.1 million and the number of approved full-time employees was reduced further from 892 to 840. See id. ¶ 10. The agency was required to make the required budget and employee cuts before October 1, 2010, the beginning of FY 2011. See id. ¶ 11. CFSA implemented a reduction in force (“RIF”) to meet the necessary reduction in personnel costs. See id. ¶ 12. The RIF, which had an effective termination date of June 11, 2010, eliminated a total of 123 positions. See id. ¶¶ 12-13. AH told, 115 employees were separated from CFSA as a result of the RIF. See id. ¶ 14. 2. The Reduction in Force The parties view the RIF in drastically different light. Plaintiffs posit that the RIF was a simple across-the-board cut with discriminatory intentions and effects. Plaintiffs point to a memorandum dated April 29, 2010 from CFSA Director Ro-que Gerald to City Administrator Neil Albert that asked for “approval to conduct a Reduction-in-Force ... to abolish one hundred and twenty-three .., positions, within the Child and Family Services Agency.” Pis.’ Mem. P. & A. Opp’n Def.’s Mot. Summ. J. (“Opp’n Summ. J.”) at 5, ECF No. 148 (quoting Mot. Summ. J., Ex. F at 1, ECF No. 146-3). The memorandum explained that CFSA “must conduct a realignment to consolidate functions in accordance with the FY’2011 budget and internal re-engineering,” and that “[t]he deficit resulting from the realignment will precipitate a reduction in force.” Id. Plaintiffs note that the memorandum provided an “agency-wide” list of positions, which purportedly affected virtually every office of CFSA. See Opp’n Summ. J. at 6. CFSA’s Director sent a letter dated May 6, 2010 that informed the 115 CFSA employees who would be terminated by the RIF. See Opp’n Summ. J., Ex. 2 at 1, ECF No. 148-2, The letter did not provide a reason for the RIF, but stated that employees would “be separated from District government service effective 6/11/10” and that the RIF was conducted in “accordance with Chapter 24 of the District’s Personnel Regulations and in no way_ reflects adversely on your performance of your official duties.” Id. In contrast, the District contends that the RIF was the result of a series of separate decisions. The District claims that “CFSA did not utilize a single uniform criteria, test or requirement for determining which employees” would be included in the RIF. Def.’s Mem. P. & A. Supp. Def.’s Mot. Summ. J. (“Mem. Supp. Summ. J.”) at 4, ECF No. 146. Instead, relying on the declaration of Raymond Davidson, CFSA’s Chief Administrative Officer at the time of the RIF, the District contends that the decisions to eliminate certain, positions were the result of multiple individual choices by the Director, working in consultation with numerous managers and senior leaders in the agency. See Def.’s Material Facts ¶ 15; see also generally Mot. Summ.' J., Ex. E (“Davidson Decl.”), ECF Ño. 146-3. But see Pis.’ Disputed Facts at 3. Mr. Davidson’s declaration also focused on CFSÁ’s' attempts to create new service models for providing services in the District. See Davidson Decl. ¶¶ 6-7, 10-12,14. 3. The Newly Created Family Support Worker Position The parties also apply their competing narratives to discrete components of the RIF, particularly the elimination of the Social Service Assistant (“SSA”) and Social Worker Associate (“SWA”) positions, and the creation of a new Family Support Worker (“FSW”) position. According to Mr. Davidson, CFSA determined that it should adopt a model where Social Workers “are ‘teamed’ with a set of skilled partners in order to more effectively serve the needs of the Agency’s children and family clients.”’ Davidson Decl. ¶ 6; see also Def.’s Material Facts ¶ 18. To advance that model, CFSA eliminated the SSA and SWA positions through the RIF in favor of a newly created FSW position. See Davidson Decl. ¶ 7; see' also Def.’s Material Facts ¶ 19. The elimination of the SSA and SSW positions accounted for the majority of the 115 employees terminated in the RIF. Def.’s Material Facts ¶ 20; Pis.’ Disputed Facts at 6. CFSA posted openings for the new FSW positions at the same time it informed employees of the RIF. See Opp’n Summ. J., Ex. 3 at 7, EOF No. 148-2. The FSW position required a bachelor’s degree in a social service field. Def.’s Material Facts ¶32; see also Pis.’ Disputed Facts at 8 (acknowledging the degree requirement). Debra Porchia-Usher, CFSA Deputy Director for Agency Programs, stated that FSWs would be “able to perform casework activities that support investigative social workers to obtain the information necessary to complete investigations of abuse and neglect, including interviewing family members, children, and caretakers[;] assessing the safety of a home and the well-being of children[;] conducting home visits; documenting information into the case record; coordinating with other team members for meetings; and coordinating needed services for families and children.” See Mot. Summ. J., Ex. B (“Porchia-Usher Deck”) ¶ 12, ECF No. 146-3. Plaintiffs contend that the SSA and FSW positions involved the same responsibilities, and that the only difference between the positions was the FSW’s degree requirement. Opp’n Summ. J. at 8-11. Plaintiffs present CFSA’s job descriptions of the relevant positions, and suggest that the descriptions are largely identical. See Opp’n Summ. J. at 8-10; Porchia-Usher Deck, Exs. A-B. For, instance, the SSA responsibilities included: • “[Pjroviding direct support to social work staff and the social work function.” Porchia-Usher Deck, Ex. A. • “Conducting] non-clinical home visits accompanying a Social Worker or a Social Service Assistant, as needed, for reasons of safety ....” Id. • “Providing] transportation assistance for clients ....” Id, • “Supporting] social workers and supervisory social workers in implementing service plans by supervising/facilitating visits, making referrals or scheduling service with providers ....” Id. • “Participating] in case and supervisory conferences as needed; bringing] problem issues to the attention of the worker and/or supervisor for discussion in these conferences.” Id. • “Assisting] the social worker in completing specified paper searches to locate hard-to-find families by searching and clarifying data, checking files, and contacting other agencies.” Id. The FWS job posting included a number of similar responsibilities, including: • “Performing] casework, group work, and community organization work under the supervision of a Licensed Independent Social Worker ....” Porchia-Usher Deck, Ex. B. • “Accompanying] a Social Worker as needed, for reasons of safety or participating] in home visits and/or investigations to determine the needs of clients ....” Id. • “Providing] transportation assistance for clients ....” Id. • “Supporting] social workers and supervisory social workers in implementing service plans by supervising/facilitating visits ....” Id. • “With guidance, developing] plans for and providing] appropriate assistance and services on a continuing basis to children and family members.” Id. • “Assisting] the social worker in completing specified paper and record searches to locate hard-to-find families by engaging diligent search services or by searching and clarifying existing data, checking files and contacting other agencies as necessary.” Id. Plaintiffs also present evidence that SSAs were already completing some of the additional responsibilities — specifically casework and assessments during home visits — that were included in the FSW job description. Plaintiff Darius Morris, for instance, testified during a deposition that SSAs routinely made home visits and assessments, but that CFSA did not enter those visits and assessments into its database system. See Opp’n Summ. J., Ex. 11 at 21-26, ECF No. 148-3. In her response to an interrogatory, Plaintiff Stephanie Alston stated that, despite her lack of a bachelor’s degree, the Georgia Avenue Family Support Collaborative, a CFSA contractor, hired her as a Family Support Worker. See Opp’n Summ. J., Ex. 14 at 2, 4, ECF No. 148-6. Plaintiffs contend that CFSA’s decision to contract the FSW function to an outside vendor, who in turn hired Ms. Alston, shows that a bachelor’s degree was not required to perform the duties of a FSW. See Opp’n Summ. J. at 10-11. Finally, Plaintiffs present an email sent by CFSA employee Jenna Beebe on May 26, 2010. See Opp’n Summ. J., Ex. 6 at 1, ECF No. 148-2. Ms. Beebe states that “one of the other supervisory interviewers mentioned to me that they felt that the FSW would be used in the exact fashion SSA’s were prior to RIF.” Id. Ms. Beebe went on to say that, in her understanding, “FSW’s will have much higher requirements and acquired skills.” Id. In response, Ms. Porchia-Usher stated that CFSA would need “to be conscious that all FSW know the expectations” and that “performance evaluations [clearly] outline the current position expectations.” Id. 4. Hiring for the FSW Position A job posting for the newly created FSW position stated that the position would be open as of May 5, 2010 and that CFSA planned to fill 35 vacancies. See Opp’n Summ. J., Ex. 4 at 1, ECF No. 148-2. On June 7, 2010, CFSA Director Gerald sent an email stating that “[t]he first of our new Family Support Workers (FSWs) came on board today” and that each of the 17 new FSWs “are former CFSA employees we’re re-hiring after the reduction in force last month.” Opp’n Summ. J., Ex. 5 at 1, ECF No. 148-2. Director Gerald also stated that “Human Resources is prepared to make offers to an additional group shortly. All those candidates are from outside CFSA.” Id. According to the District’s data, 44 employees who were separated through the RIF applied for an FSW position. See Def.’s Material Facts ¶ 36. Of the 44 applicants, 30 held a bachelor’s degree and therefore satisfied the minimal education requirements of the position. Id. ¶ 37. Two declined to be interviewed and two others took other positions in the agency. Id. ¶ 38. Following an interview of all qualified applicants, CFSA hired 18 employees who had been terminated in the RIF. Id. ¶ 41. The District contends that all 18 re-hires were African-American and 7 were age 40 or older. Id. ¶¶ 42-43. Plaintiff Mr. Ajakai-ye was one of the 18 initial FSW hires, and is the only plaintiff in this case who was hired for that position. Opp’n Summ. J. at 12. 5. Expert Reports During the process of discovery, the parties retained experts to provide statistical analyses of the RIF and related decisions by CFSA. Plaintiffs hired Dr. Paige Munro, who has a Ph.D. in industrial organizational psychology. See Mot. Summ. J., Ex. H (“Munro Deck”) ¶ 1, ECF No. 146-3. The District hired Dr. Stephen Bro-nars, who has a Ph.D. in economics. See Mot. Summ. J., Ex. J ¶2. Both of the experts produced two reports using statistical analyses to examine the purported impact of CFSA’s employment practices. a. Dr. Munro’s July 2012 Report Dr. Munro submitted her initial report for the Plaintiffs on July 28, 2012. See Munro Deck at 4; see also Mot. Summ. J., Ex. I, ECF No. 146-3 (Dr. Munro’s report). Dr. Munro based her report on data provided by the District in the declaration of Stan Spaght, the Human Resources Manager for Compensation/Benefits at CFSA. Id. ¶2; see also Mot. Summ. J., Ex. I at 1. Mr. Spaght stated that, before the RIF, CFSA had a total workforce of 832. See Opp’n Summ. J., Ex. 10 (“Spaght Deck”) ¶ 5, ECF No. 148-2. According to Mr. Spaght, prior to the RIF, 82.8% of employees were African-American and 62.7% were age 40 and over. Id. Finally, Mr. Spaght’s declaration stated that, of the 116 workers terminated in the RIF, 93% were African-American, and 74.8% were workers 40 and over. Id. Relying on that data, Dr. Munro calculated that, of the 832 workers at CFSA before the RIF, approximately 689 were African-American and 143 were other races. See Mot. Summ. J., Ex. I at 1. Similarly, approximately 522 employees were 40 and over and 310 were younger than 40. Id. Dr. Munro also calculated that 107 employees terminated in the RIF were African-American (8 were other races), and 86 were 40 and over (29 were younger than 40). Id. Dr. Munro then conducted a statistical analysis to determine whether the rate of termination for African-Americans and employees 40 and over differed in a statistically significant way from the termination rates for non-African-American employees and employees under 40. Id. Dr. Munro’s analysis concluded that the RIF termination rate for African-Americans was 15.6%, while the same rate for non-African-Americans was 5.6%. Id. at 3-4. A parallel analysis concluded that the RIF termination rate for employees 40 and over was 16.5%, while the same rate for those under 40 was 9.4%. Id. at 4-5. Dr. Munro’s analysis relies on the 4/5ths rule, which she refers to as a “rule of thumb to evaluate adverse impact in a hiring or termination scenario.” Id. at 3. Simply put, “if 100% of a majority group pass a test then the minority group should not pass at a rate lower than 80% or the test result is said to be adversely impacting the minority group.” Id. Dr. Munro concluded that the RIF violated the 4/5ths rule on the basis of both race and age. Id. 4-5. Dr. Munro also concluded that both results are strongly statistically significant. Id. Finally, Dr. Munro found that re-hiring 18 African-American to the FSW position “does not change the net results notably.” Id. at 4. b. Dr. Bronars’s January 20U Report The District’s expert, Dr. Bronars, produced his initial report on January 8, 2014. See Mot. Summ. J., Ex. J. Dr. Bronars begins his analysis with a different total number of CFSA employees at the time of the RIF. Dexter Starkes, CFSA Director of Human Resources, stated in his declaration that 30 employees in the office of the Fiscal Operations Administration “contribute to the agency’s overall headcount, [but] they report to, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer and are not technically CFSA employees. As a result, these positions were not subject to inclusion in the RIF.” Mot. Summ. J., Ex. C.1Í7 (“Starkes Deck”), ECF No. 146-3. Therefore, Dr. Bronars began his analysis with 802 employees at the time of the RIF, instead of 832. See Mot. Summ. J., Ex. J. . Dr. Bronars took a-very different statistical approach -than Dr. Munro. Dr. Bro-nars explained that Dr. Munro’s approach “is based on the assumption that all CFSA employees faced the same risk of termination during, the RIF.” Id ¶ 11. Instead, Dr, Bronars stated that his “analysis allows the risk of termination to vary between divisions within the CFSA and among certain jobs within the CFSA.” Id ¶ 12. Dr. Bronars based his assumption of disparate risk on the declaration of Raymond Davidson, CFSA’s Chief Administrative Officer at the time of the RIF. Id; see also Davidson Decl. Therefore, instead of one analysis of all CFSA employees, Dr. Bronars “assume[d] that there are 7 different sets of layoff decisions made by CFSA during the RIF” corresponding to 7 different positions or divisions affected by the downsizing. See Mot, Summ. J,, Ex. J. 1121. Dr. Bronars also used a different standard for statistical significance. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, he would “conclude that there is statistical evidence of discrimination ... if the difference between the actual outcomes of the termination process and the outcomes that would have been expected from a random neutral, process is so large that it would have occurred 5% of the time.” Id ¶ 18. This difference corresponds to two standard deviations. Id ¶ 19. Dr, Bronars’s analysis concluded that, “while 107 African American employees were laid off during the RIF, had employees within each of the seven position and division groups been selected in a race-neutral manner, 105.21 African American employees would have been terminated.” Id ¶22. Similarly, “while 81 employees age 40 and above were laid off during the RIF, had employees within each of the seven position and division groups been selected in an age-neutral manner, 79.09 employees ... would have been terminated.” Id ¶ 23. Dr. Bronars found that neither difference was statistically significant. Id ¶¶ 22-23. Finally, Dr. Bronars turned to the hiring for the FSW position. Dr. Bronars contends that Dr. Munro “effectively assumes that all 115 individuals who were initially terminated during the RIF were equally qualified and equally interested in an FSW position.” Id ¶ 24. Based on information provided by the Attorney General’s Office, Dr. Bronars states that 44 former employees applied for the FSW position, 2 withdrew or declined to be interviewed, and 14 were determined not to be qualified for the position. Id ¶ 25. Ultimately, 18 of the 28 qualified and interested former CFSA employees were re-hired as FSWs. Id Because all 18 re-hires were African American, Dr. Bronars concludes “[t]here is, of course, no possibility of racial disparity in the re-hiring process.” Id Turning to the age of applicants, Dr. Bronars states that “11 of the former CFSA employees re-hired into the FSW position were under age 40 and 7 were age 40 and above.” Id ¶ 26. Dr. Bronars notes that half of 'the interested and qualified applicants for the FSW positon were age 40 and aboye. Id Thus, in an “age-neutral process one would expect that half of the 18 re-hired former CFSA employees would be under age 40 and half would be age 40 and above.” Id. Dr. Bronars concludes that “[t]he difference between 7 [actual] .and 9 [expected] rehired employees is equivalent to a difference of 1.58 standard deviations and is therefore statistically insignificant.” Id. c. Dr. Munro’s May 20U Report Dr. Munro submitted a rebuttal to Dr. Bronars’s report on dated May 7,2014. See Mot. Summ. J., Ex. K, EOF No. 146-4. To start, Dr. Munro raises issues with the updated data provided by the District and relied upon by Dr. Bronars. Dr. Munro concludes that 30 employees are not accounted for in the updated data and that racial identification is not provided in 84 cases. Id. at 2. Nevertheless, Dr, Munro replicated her original calculations using the new data, and found what she describes as “more significant results.” Id. at 2-4. While Dr. Munro’s initial analysis concluded that the RIF’s “African American termination rate was 277% the rate for non-African Americans,” her updated analysis concluded that “the termination rate of African Americans was 444% the rate of Caucasians, which is much, much more notable.” Id. at 3 (emphasis added). Similarly, Dr. Munro’s initial analysis found that employees 40 and over were terminated “at 176% the rate of those under 40,” but after considering the new data, she found that employees 40 and over were terminated “at 179% the rate of those under 40.” Id. at -4. Dr. Munro concludes that the termination rates for both African-Americans and employees 40 and over violated the 4/5ths rule and that both results are statistically significant. Id. at 3-4. Dr. Munro also identified several purported methodological and statistical issues with Dr. Broriars’s previous report. Id. at 5-7 (summarizing concerns). First, Dr. Munro questions Dr, Bronars’s assumption that different positions faced unequal risks of termination in the RIF. Id. at 6, 8-11. Dr. Munro contends that Dr. Bronars bases this assumption on the relatively recent declaration of Mr. Davidson, but that, “at the time of [her] analysis, the most practical assumption to make was that aside from the SSAs (that were 100% terminated), every other position and employee ... was at equal risk for termination.” Id. at 5; see' also id. at 8-12. Second, Dr. Munro raises two statistical issues with Dr. Bronars’s analysis. Id. at 6, 12-16. For one, sample size is an important factor in finding a statistically significant result, and by breaking the larger sample size (all employees) into smaller subgroups (specific positions or divisions), Dr. Bronars made it less likely that any statistically significant result would be found. Id, at 14. For another, .the subgroups analyzed by Dr. Bronars were very homogenous — at least one subgroup was entirely African-American, for example— and Dr. Munro contends that homogenous subsamples can make an effort to predict differentials between expected and observed outcomes “completely meaningless.” Id. Third, Dr. Munro suggests that Dr. Bronars’s “conclusions are not disposi-tive of adverse impact.” Id. at 16. According to Dr. Munro, the homogeneity of Dr. Bronars’s subsamples raises another possibility — “that the ‘targeted’ positions and divisions were disproportionately occupied by African Americans and. those over 40.” Id. Finally, Dr. Munro concludes her report with a lengthy analysis of the financial and agency efficiency implications of the RIF. Id. at 22-31. d. Dr. Bronars’s July 20¼ Report Dr. Bronars also submitted a second report, which he signed on July 28, 2014. See Mot. Summ. J., Ex. L at 6, EOF No. 146-6. In short, Dr. Bronars states that his “conclusions are the same as they were in [his] January 2014 report.” Id. ¶ 8. Dr. Bronars does, however, respond to the critiques raised by Dr. Munro. The core of Dr. Bronars’s argument is that Dr. Munro’s model improperly assumes that “a non-discriminatory RIF implies that all agency employees have the same chance of termination.” Id. ¶ 10. Dr. Bronars points to both Mr. Davidson’s declaration and Dr. Munro’s own analysis of RIF best practices to argue that a well-constructed and non-discriminatory RIF will not target employees in a completely random manner. Id. ¶¶ 10-12. Instead, “[b]est practices and concerns for program efficiency could lead to the elimination of entire positions or disproportionate terminations” in redundant divisions, but these “valid non-discriminatory RIF decisions are nearly impossible to reconcile with Dr. Munro’s statistical model.” Id. ¶ 12. Dr. Bronars acknowledges that “a small sample size reduces the statistical power of a test and will tend to make the statistical inferences inconclusive,” but he argues that low statistical power due to small sample sizes is not a reason to “assume that a non-discriminatory RIF would subject all employees to the same chance of termination.” Id. ¶ 7. Dr. Bronars also contends that “while [his] analysis allowed for different termination decisions in each of seven different employee categories ... [his] statistical calculation for adverse impact was aggregated across all of these categories.” Id. ¶ 17. Finally, Dr. Bronars again criticizes Dr. Munro’s reliance on the 4/5ths rule and suggests that Dr. Munro “offered no statistical tests for her conjecture that the ‘targeting’ of certain positions and divisions/offices was motivated by discrimination rather than business necessity.” Id. ¶¶ 20-21. B. Procedural History 1. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Following the RIF, Darius Morris filed his claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on September 8, 2010, alleging discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, and retaliation. See Def.’s Material Facts ¶47. Mr. Morris referred to his charge as a “Class Action Charge” in the caption, and stated, “[a]ll the 60 or so Social Service Assistants are African-American (black) as the Agency knew .... CFSA harmed me and the other former SSAs without business need and without any job related reason.” Mot. Summ. J., Ex. P, ECF No. 164-4. Mr. Morris received a right to sue letter from the EEOC on March 14, 2011. See Def.’s ■ Material Facts ¶ 48. Zaccheus Ajakaiye filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC alleging discrimination based on national origin on July 16, 2010. See id. ¶44. Mr. Ajakaiye filed an amended charge on August 6, 2010 alleging discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin. See id. ¶ 45. He received a right to sue letter from the EEOC on February 18, 2011. See id. ¶ 46. Plaintiffs acknowledge that no other purported class members are in possession of right to sue letters from the EEOC. See Pis.’ Disputed Facts at 1; Opp’n Summ. J. at 30 & n.2 (acknowledging that Plaintiffs cannot present other right to sue letters, but stating that “Plaintiffs do not concede that Ajakaiye and Morris are the only terminated CFSA employees to file claims with the EEOC”). But Plaintiffs present evidence that additional EEOC charges wei’e filed. Specifically, Plaintiffs’ prior counsel, David Rose, requested the amendment to Mr. Ajakaiye’s charge in a letter to the EEOC. See Opp’n Summ. J., Ex. 7. In the same letter, Mr. Rose referred to a “letter dated August 20, 2010, with at least 19 other charges by Social Service Assistants.” Id. Two months later, Mr. Rose submitted another letter to the EEOC referring to “the three .., most recently signed Charges of Discrimination in this case, from former CFSA SSAs.” Opp’n Summ. J., Ex. 8. In October 2010, Mr. Rose sent another letter stating that he represented nine former employees of CFSA, including Mr. Ajakaiye, and requested right to sue letters for the other eight. See Opp’n Summ. J., Ex. 9. Plaintiffs state that they contacted the EEOC regarding these communications and other possible right to sue letters, but that the EEOC informed Plaintiffs’ current “counsel that, in the absence of Charge Numbers for the additional nineteen plaintiffs, EEOC offices lack the capacity to conduct a thorough search of its records based solely on plaintiffs’ names.” Opp’n Summ. J. at 13 n.6. 2. Proceedings before this Court Plaintiffs in Davis v. District of Columbia, No. 10-1564, filed their Complaint in this Court on September 16, 2010. See Compl., ECF No. 1. This case was consolidated with Dudley v. District of Columbia, No. 10-1718, and following the Court’s resolution of dispositive briefing, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on March 22, 2013. See 2d Am. Compl., ECF No. 58. Finally, Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint on May 31, 2013, which remains operative in this case. See 3d Am. Compl., ECF No. 66. The Third Amended Complaint was filed on behalf of 47 named Plaintiffs and “other members of the group who received the RIF notices ... and were discharged from employment by defendant.” Id. ¶8. The Third Amended Complaint contains two claims for relief: (1) “Age Discriminatory Practices” in violation of the District of Columbia Human Rights Act (“DCHRA”), D.C. Code § 2-1402.11, and (2) “Race Discrimination” in violation of the DCHRA and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. Id. at 14, 16. Plaintiffs alleged that both the RIF and the bachelor’s degree requirement of the newly created FSW position had a discriminatory impact on African-Americans and older employees. Id. ¶¶ 84-86, 98-100. As previously mentioned, this Court resolved initial dispositive motions in 2013. See Davis v. District of Columbia, 949 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C. 2013), ECF No. 55. Upon consideration of the District’s motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ disparate treatment theory based on the RIF, but allowed a related disparate impact theory to go forward. Id. at 11. The Court also permitted Plaintiffs to go forward with both disparate impact and disparate treatment theories related to the FSW’s degree requirement. Id. Specifically, the Court explained that the “disparate impact claims based on both the reduction in force and the educational requirements for Family Social Workers will go forward under the Human Rights Act, as they did under Title VII, as will the disparate treatment claim based on those degree requirements.” Id. at 12. Now pending before the Court is the District’s post-discovery motion for summary judgment. See Mot. Summ. J., ECF No. 146. During the pendency of this litigation, the Court granted the District’s motion for sanctions, finding that Plaintiffs “have missed or ignored discovery deadlines, not provided appropriate documentation or answers to discovery requests, and generally failed to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” See Davis v. D.C. Child & Family Servs. Agency, 304 F.R.D. 51, 60 (D.D.C. 2014), ECF No. ,97. The Court also issued an order dismissing without prejudice Michelle Millard-Simms, based on her voluntary withdrawal, and four other Plaintiffs for failure to prosecute their claims. See Order, ECF No. 139 Plaintiffs have repeatedly sought class certification during this case. On January 14, 2011, Plaintiffs moved for class certification for the first time. See Pis.’ Mot. Class Certification, ECF No. 12. The Court denied that motion without prejudice as moot because Plaintiffs had amended them Complaint. See Min. Order (Sept. 23, 2011). Plaintiffs renewed their motion for class certification on February 14, 2014. See Mem. Supp. Pis.’ Mot. Class Certification, ECF No. 81. The Court again denied Plaintiffs’ motion without prejudice and explained that the pre-dis-covery motion was premature. See Min. Order (Feb. 21, 2014). Following discovery, the Court ordered Plaintiffs to file an additional motion for class certification on or before November 9, 2015. See Min. Entry (Sept. 8,2015). That motion is now pending before the Court. See Mot. Class Certification. III. LEGAL STANDARDS A. Summary Judgment Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court must grant summary judgment 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). A “material” fact is one capable of affecting the substantive outcome of the litigation, See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A dispute is “genuine!’, if there is enough evidence for a reasonable jury to.return' a verdict for the non-movant. See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007). The inquiry under Rule 56 is essentially “whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251-52, 106 S.Ct. 2505. The principal purpose of summary judgment is to determine whether there is a genuine need for trial by disposing of factually unsupported claims or defenses. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323-24, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The movant bears the initial burden of identifying portions, of the record that demonstrate the absence of any genuine issue of material fact. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548. In response, the non-movant must point to specific facts in the record that reveal a genuine issue that is suitable for trial. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548. “[T]he non-movant ‘may not rest upon mere allegations or denials ... ’ but must [instead] present ‘affirmative evidence.’” See Laningham v. U.S. Navy, 813 F.2d 1236, 1241 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (quoting Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256-57, 106 S.Ct. 2505). In considering a motion for summary judgment, a court must “eschew making credibility determinations or weighing the evidence,” Czekalski v. Peters, 475 F.3d 360, 363 (D.C. Cir. 2007). All underlying facts and inferences must be analyzed in the light most favorable to the non-mov-ant. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S.Ct. 2505. Nevertheless, conclusory assertions offered without any evidentiary support do not establish a genuine issue for trial. See Greene v. Dalton, 164 F.3d 671, 675 (D.C. Cir. 1999). B. Class Certification A class action is “an exception to the usual rule that litigation is conducted by and on behalf of the individual named parties only.” Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 700-701, 99 S.Ct. 2545, 61 L.Ed.2d 176 (1979). To justify a departure from that rule, “a class representative must be part of the class and ‘possess the same interest and suffer the same injury’ as the class members.” East Tex. Motor Freight Sys. Inc. v. Rodriguez, 431 U.S. 395, 403, 97 S.Ct. 1891, 52 L.Ed.2d 453 (1977) (quoting Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War, 418 U.S. 208, 216, 94 S.Ct. 2925, 41 L.Ed.2d 706 (1974)). Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure’, which governs class certification, permits certification only if: (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class; (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class; and (4) the representative parties will fairly and' adequately represent the interests of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a). In addition, the party seeking certification must demonstrate that one of the relevant provisions of Rule 23(b) has been satisfied. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b). Here, Plaintiffs have requested hybrid class certification that would cértify two subclasses — one defined'by age and the other by race — first under Rule 23(b)(2) for the purposes of determining the District’s liability and then under Rule 23(b)(3) for the purpose of determining an appropriate remedy for each member of the class. See Pis.’ Mem. P. & A. Supp. Mot. Class Certification at 14-15, EOF No. 144. In the alternative, Plaintiffs request that the Court certify the two subclasses under Rule 23(b)(3) for all purposes. Id. at 22. Rule 23(b)(2) requires a showing that “the party opposing the class has. acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). Rule 23(b)(3) requires a showing that “the questions of law or fact common to class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the controversy.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing that there is a “reasonable basis for crediting [their] assertion[s]” as to each Rule 23 requirement. Wagner v. Taylor, 836 F.2d 578, 587 n.57 (D.C. Cir. 1987); see also McCarthy v. Kleindienst, 741 F.2d 1406, 1414 n.9 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (“[I]t is the party seeking class certification that bears the burden of establishing the class action requirements”). IV. ANALYSIS The District raises a wide range of arguments in support of its motion for summary judgment. The District first raises a number of issues that are specific to particular Plaintiffs. Next, the District argues that the Plaintiffs’ discrimination claims generally fail as a matter of law." The Court will address the arguments in turn, first considering the narrow Plaintiff-specific issues and then turning to the broader discrimination questions. After addressing the preliminary issues, the Court finds that the District is entitled to summary judgment on all of Plaintiffs’ remaining claims. Because the Court grants the District’s motion for summary judgment as to all remaining claims, there is no. need to consider Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Thus, the Court denies that motion as moot. A. Issues Specific to Particular Plaintiffs 1. Judicial Estoppel and Prior Bankruptcy Proceedings The doctrine of judicial estoppel prevents a parly from relying on one argument in an initial proceeding, and then subsequently prevailing in another proceeding by relying on a contradictory position. The District argues that Mr. Ajakaiye and Ms. Alston are barred from bringing their claims in this case because they failed to disclose their claims in separate bankruptcy proceedings. See Mem. Supp. Summ. J. at 12. Plaintiffs respond that judicial estoppel is not appropriate where the omission was the result of an innocent mistake or inadvertent conduct. See Opp’n Summ. J. at 24. For the following reasons, the Court finds that judicial estoppel bars Mr. Ajakaiye’s and Ms. Alston’s claims. The doctrine of judicial estoppel “prevents a party from asserting a claim in a legal proceeding that is inconsistent with a claim taken by that party in a previous proceeding.” Moses v. Howard Univ. Hosp., 606 F.3d 789, 798 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (quoting New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 749, 121 S.Ct. 1808, 149 L.Ed.2d 968 (2001)). The purpose of judicial estop-pel is “to protect the integrity of the judicial process” and “to prevent improper use of judicial machinery,” and the doctrine may be invoked at the court’s discretion. Rogler v. Gallin, 402 Fed.Appx. 530, 530 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (per curiam) (quoting New Hampshire, 532 U.S. at 750, 121 S.Ct. 1808). The D.C. Circuit has identified three questions a court should consider when exercising that discretion: (1) Is a party’s later position clearly inconsistent with its earlier position? (2) Has the party succeeded in persuading a court to accept that party’s earlier position, so that judicial acceptance of an inconsistent position in a later proceeding would create the perception that either the first or the second court was misled? (3) Will the party seeking to assert an inconsistent position derive an unfair advantage or impose an unfair detriment on the opposing party if not estopped? Moses, 606 F.3d at 798. The Moses court considered these questions in the context of a plaintiff who failed to disclose a pending suit in a bankruptcy proceeding. Id. at 798-99. After considering the application of each of the three questions, the D.C. Circuit joined other circuits in approving the application of judicial estoppel “to bar a debtor from pursuing a cause of action in district court where that debtor deliberately fails to disclose the pending suit in a bankruptcy case.” Id. at 798. In sum, judicial estoppel in the bankruptcy context “protects the integrity of the bankruptcy system and is meant to prevent parties from hiding causes of actions during bankruptcy proceedings,” obtaining the discharge of debts, and only then asserting the cause of action. Robinson v. District of Columbia, 10 F.Supp.3d 181, 185 (D.D.C. 2014) (internal citations omitted). In this case, it is undisputed that Mr. Ajakaiye and Ms. Alston both filed for bankruptcy and that neither listed claims against the District in their bankruptcy petition. See Def.’s Material Facts ¶¶49-56; Pis.’ Disputed Material Facts at 1 (agreeing to the factual descriptions of the bankruptcy proceedings, but disputing legal conclusions). Mr. Ajakaiye filed his bankruptcy petition on July 2, 2010, and the bankruptcy court discharged his debts on October 14, 2010 and issued a final decree closing the case on October 22, 2010. See Def.’s Material Facts ¶¶ 49, 51-52. Ms. Alston filed her bankruptcy petition on May 21, 2013, and the bankruptcy court discharged her debts on August 22, 2013 and issued a final decree closing the case on September 20, 2013. See Def.’s Material Facts ¶¶53, 55-56. Both Plaintiffs were named in the initial Complaint, which was filed on September 16, 2010. See Compl. at 1, EOF No. 1. It is fair to presume that a party would be aware of their claim before it was filed in Court. At the very least, a party needs time to secure counsel and then to coordinate with them attorney during the drafting and preparation of the complaint. Furthermore, Mr. Ajakaiye filed a charge of discrimination with the EEOC alleging discrimination based on national origin on July 16, 2010. See Defi’s Material Facts ¶ 44. He was certainly aware of his claims at that time, just two weeks after he filed his bankruptcy petition. Based on these facts, the Court reaches the same result as Moses. First, Mr. Aja-kaiye and Ms. Alston’s bankruptcy filings and pleadings in this case are “clearly inconsistent.” Moses, 606 F.3d at 798. Both were “required to disclose all potential claims in a bankruptcy petition,” but failed to do so. Id. at 793 (citing 11 U.S.C. §§ 521(1), 541(a)(1)). Furthermore, both bankruptcy proceedings overlapped temporally with this case, even if only briefly in Mr. Ajakaiye’s case, and a debtor is under a duty “to amend his petition if circumstances change during the course of the bankruptcy.” Id. Despite these requirements, neither Mr. Ajakaiye nor Ms. Alston disclosed their discrimination claims in their bankruptcy proceedings. Second, the relevant Bankruptcy Courts discharged the debts of Mr. Ajakaiye and Ms. Alston, and this Court permitted the current discrimination case to proceed at the same time. As in Moses, this convergence “leaves little doubt that [Mr. Ajakaiye and Ms. Alston] succeeded in hiding the inconsistency from the courts and ‘creatfes] the perception that either the first or the second court was misled.’ ” Id. at 799 (quoting New Hampshire, 532 U.S. at 750, 121 S.Ct. 1808)). Third, Mr. Ajakaiye and Ms. Alston gained an unfair advantage over their creditors because they would not be required to turn over any damages to their creditors if they were to succeed in this suit. The non-disclosure also affected the District because, if the relevant Trustees were aware of this case, they “might have settled this case early or decided not to pursue it.” Id. Therefore, the basic requirements for the application of judicial estoppel, as articulated in Moses, are applicable here. Plaintiffs make an additional argument against the application of judicial estoppel. Plaintiffs assert that judicial estoppel does not bar Mr. Ajakaiye and Ms. Alston’s claims because they did not have knowledge of their claims or any motive to conceal those claims in their bankruptcy proceedings. See Opp’n Summ. J. at 23-24. The Supreme Court has instructed that “it may be appropriate to resist application of judicial estoppel when a party’s prior position was based on inadvertence or mistake.” New Hampshire, 532 U.S. at 753, 121 S.Ct. 1808 (quotation marks omitted). In Moses, the D.C. Circuit accepted this basic principle, but found that the plaintiff “cannot avoid judicial estoppel” on this basis because he “failed to disclose the existence of this case in two separate bankruptcy proceedings, yet in both of those proceedings he listed pending lawsuits that, unlike the instant case, reduced the overall value of his assets through wage garnishment.” Moses, 606 F.3d at 800. The D.C. Circuit recently revisited the question of when inadvertence or mistake can excuse a debtor’s failure to disclose a claim. See Marshall v. Honeywell Tech. Sys. Inc., 828 F.3d 923, 932 (D.C. Cir. 2016), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 137 S.Ct 830, 197 L.Ed.2d 69 (2017). In a divided opinion, the court summarized the views of other circuits: Many courts of appeals have adopted the Fifth Circuit’s statement that a “debtor’s failure to satisfy its statutory disclosure duty is ‘inadvertent’ only when, in general, the debtor either lacks knowledge of the undisclosed claims or has no motive for their concealment.” In re Coastal Plains, Inc., 179 F.3d 197, 210 (5th Cir. 1999) (italics in original); see Barger [v. City of Cartersville], 348 F.3d [1289, ]at 1295-96 [ (2003) ]; Browning v. Levy, 283 F.3d 761, 776 (6th Cir. 2002); Eastman v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 493 F.3d 1151, 1157 (10th Cir. 2007). Others have found that evaluating subjective motivations is difficult and the court can therefore presume that a debt- or has acted intentionally, unless there is evidence otherwise. The Third Circuit, for example, has held that if a debtor knowingly omits valuable assets from her bankruptcy schedules, the court may infer that the omission was not an innocent mistake. Krystal Cadillac-Oldsmobile GMC Truck, Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 337 F.3d 314, 321 (3d Cir. 2003); see also Burnes v. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., 291 F.3d 1282, 1287-88 (11th Cir. 2002). The Ninth Circuit, disagreeing, holds that district courts must give weight to “the plaintiffs subjective intent when filling out and signing the bankruptcy schedules.” Ah Quin v. Cty. of Kauai Dep’t of Transp., 733 F.3d 267, 277 (9th Cir. 2013). Id. The court concluded, however, that it-had “no need to take sides in this debate, if indeed there are discrete sides at all.” Id. Some policy considerations weigh against the. overzealous application of judicial estoppel in this context. As Judge Griffith explained, “[hjonest mistakes and oversights are not unheard of’ in the bankruptcy context. Id. at 934 (Griffith, J., dissenting) (alteration in original) (quoting Spaine v. Cmty. Contacts, Inc., 756 F.3d 542, 548 (7th Cir. 2014)). Furthermore, when a court “applies] judicial estoppel based on bankruptcy,omissions, the costs primarily fall not on the plaintiff, but on her creditors, who might otherwise recover assets from successful lawsuits.” Id. at 934-35. Ultimately, the Court finds that judicial estoppel bars Mr. Ajakaiye and Ms. Alston from bringing their claims here because they have put forward no evidence that inadvertence or mistake caused their prior omissions. Under the well-known rule, summary judgment is appropriate -only if there is “no genuine issue as to any material fact.” Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548. The Court must resolve “any doubts” as to the existence of a genuine issue for trial in the non-moving party’s favor. McSurely v. McClellan, 697 F.2d 309, 321 (D.C. Cir. 1982). But the non-moving party’s opposition “must consist of more than mere unsupported allegations or denials and must be supported by affidavits, declarations or other competent evidence, setting forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Doe v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 706 F.Supp.2d 1, 5 (D.D.C. 2009). In Marshall, the court refused to find inadvertence or mistake even after the plaintiff filed an affidavit stating that she “had no knowledge that I was required to list my discrimination administrative proceedings on my bankruptcy petition schedules or on any financial statements.” Marshall, 828 F.3d at 930-31. The plaintiff also presented evidence that she orally disclosed one of her discrimination claims to the trustee at her creditors’ meeting in 2005. Id. at 930. Plaintiffs in this case have presented no evidence, by affidavit or otherwise, to support their assertion that Mr. Ajakaiye and Ms. Alston failed to disclose their claims because of inadvertence or mistake. Even in the more permissive circuits, courts have refused to find inadvertence or mistake where a plaintiff “presented no evidence, by affidavit or otherwise, explaining her initial failure to include the action on her bankruptcy schedules.” Dzakula v. McHugh, 746 F.3d 399, 401 (9th Cir. 2014). For these reasons, the Court finds that judicial es-toppel bars the claims of Mr. Ajakaiye and Ms. Alston. The Court will therefore grant summary judgment in favor of the District on this issue. 2. Standing of Plaintiffs with a Bachelor’s Degree The District argues that Mr. Morris and Mr. Ajakaiye do not have standing to challenge the college degree requirement for the newly created FSW position because both men had a college degree at the time of the RIF. See Mem. Supp. Summ. J. at 15. Plaintiffs respond that each Plaintiff, “regardless of their educational backgrounds and regardless of whether' they were subsequently hired for the FSW position, suffered injury from the moment that they were separated from the agency.” See Opp’n Summ. J. at 34. For the reasons explained below, the Court finds that Plaintiffs with a college degree lack standing to challenge the degree requirement for the FSW position. The party seeking to assert federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing standing. See DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342, 126 S.Ct. 1854, 164 L.Ed.2d 589 (2006). The requirements for standing are that: (1) the plaintiff must have1 suffered an injury in fact, (2) the injury must have a causal connection to the actions of the defendant, and (3) it must be likely that a favorable decision could redress the injury. See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). In short, “the Constitution requires that an injury be concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; fairly traceable to the challenged action; and redressable by a favorable ruling.” Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139, 149, 130 S.Ct. 2743, 177 L.Ed.2d 461 (2010). Plaintiffs argue that the loss of their jobs is sufficient to create standing because they “suffered injury from the moment they were separated from the agency” and the District caused that injury. See Opp’n Summ. J. at 34. Plaintiffs also attempt to tie the RIF to the degree requirement, arguing that the District has already conceded Plaintiffs’ standing to challenge the RIF and that the “eligibility] to be hired for the FSW position represented an opportunity for the government to mitigate the injury of selecting plaintiffs for the RIF, not a separate injury.” Id. Plaintiffs offer no support for that position. As the District correctly notes, “standing is not dispensed in gross.” Def.’s Reply Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. (“Reply Supp. Summ. J.”) at 9, ECF No. 154 (quoting Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 358 n.6, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 135 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996)). Instead, “a plaintiff must demonstrate standing for each claim he seeks to press,” Cuno, 547 U.S. at 335, 126 S.Ct. 1854. Here, it is undisputed that Mr. Morris and Mr. Ajakaiye held a bachelor’s degree at the time of the RIF. See Def.’s Material Facts ¶¶ 61-62; Pis.’ Disputed Material Facts at 1 (noting that Plaintiffs do not dispute these paragraphs). Plaintiffs argue that the bachelor’s degree requirement for the FSW position is- discriminatory, see Opp’n Summ. J. at 43-44, but that requirement simply could not have injured employees who already had a degree. The policy is not causally connected to any injury alleged by émployees with a bachelor’s degree. Although Mr. Morris and Mr. Ajakaiye have standing to challenge the RIF, they do not have standing to challenge the FSW’s bachelor’s degree requirement. Thus, the Court will grant summary judgment for the District on this issue. 3. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies The District argues that only Mr. Morris and Mr. Ajakaiye have exhausted their administrative remedies, and therefore the other Plaintiffs should not be permitted to proceed on their Title VII claims. See Mem. Supp, Summ. J. at 16. Plaintiffs acknowledge the-general rule asserted by the District, but argue that the doctrine of vicarious exhaustion allows a party who did not file a charge with the EEOC to piggy back on another similar charge. See Opp’n Summ. J. at 27. The Court finds that the EEOC charges filed by Mr. Morris and Mr. Ajakaiye provided sufficient notice to the District of the similar claims raised by other Plaintiffs. Thus, the Court denies the District’s motion for summary judgment on this issue. Generally, a plaintiff must exhaust their administrative remedies by filing a charge of discrimination with the EEOC before bringing a civil suit under Title VII. See Washington v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 160 F.3d 750, 752 (D.C. Cir. 1998); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(l). “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.” 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. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(l); 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.”). “A court cannot allow liberal interpretation of an administrative charge to permit a litigant to bypass the Title VII administrative process,” Park, 71 F.3d at 907. Nevertheless, the vicarious exhaustion 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). Vicarious exhaustion is only available for parties whose claims are “so similar to those asserted by the original plaintiff that no purpose would be served by requiring them to file independent charges.” Byrd v. District of Columbia, 807 F.Supp.2d 37, 63 (D.D.C. 2011) (quoting Brooks, 606 F.3d at 807). In other words, the original administrative claim must “(1) put the employer-defendant on notice of all charges by the similarly situated plaintiff, and (2) provide the employer and the EEOC with an opportunity for administrative ... resolution.” Id. (citing Foster v. Gueory, 655 F.2d 1319, 1322 (D.C. Cir. 1981)). In Cook v. Boorstin, the D.C. Circuit 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.” 763 F.2d 1462, 1466 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (quoting Foster, 655 F.2d at 1322); see also 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 .... ”). In this case, the District concedes that Mr. Morris and Mr. Ajakaiye have exhausted their administrative remedies. See Mem. Supp. Summ. J. at 16; Def.’s Material Facts ¶¶44, 47. The District, however, raises four objections to Plaintiffs’ reliance on vicarious exhaustion. First, the District argues that the EEOC charges filed by Mr. Morris and Mr. Ajakaiye only assert a claim of discrimination on behalf of themselves and other SSAs, not the non-SSA employees who were terminated in the RIF. See Reply Supp. Summ. J. at 12. A review of the relevant EEOC charges reveals that Mr. Morris and Mr. Ajakaiye both focused on the RIF’s impact on SSAs. See Mot. Summ. J., Exs. O-P, ECF No. 146-4. Of course, both men were SSAs and the majority of employees terminated by the RIF were SSAs. See Pis.’ Disputed Facts at 6 (stating that 57 of the 115 employees who received the RIF letter were SSAs). The relevant question here, is whether the EEOC charges “put the employer-defendant on notice of all charges by ... similarly situated plaintiffs].” Byrd, 807 F.Supp.2d at 63 (citing Foster, 655 F.2d at 1322). Mr. Morris’s EEOC charge does just that. See Mot. Summ, J., Ex. P at 1. Mr. Morris described the letter he received from CFSA, which explained that he was being terminated “because of a reduction in force” despite the lack of any concerns about his job duties. Id. Mr. Morris alleged that there was “no financial crisis” and that he was injured by CFSA “by being selected for discharge.” Id. Mr. Morris also checked boxes indicating his allegations of discrimination based on race, color, national origin, age, and retaliation and described the charge as a class action charge. Id. These allegations are common to all employees terminated in the RIF, not just SSAs. Although Mr. Morris went on describe particular complaints about the FSW position and the degree requirement, his general complaint about the RIF was sufficient to put CFSA “on notice of all charges” by non-SSA Plaintiffs. See Byrd, 807 F.Supp.2d at 63. Second, the District argues that the charges filed by Mr. Morris and Mr. Ajakaiye “only assert a claim based on their termination in the RIF,” and “cannot exhaust a distinct claim of discrimination based on the FSW bachelor’s degree requirement.” See Reply Supp. Summ. J. at 12. The District is correct that a “party must exhaust ... administrative remedies ... for each discrete act of discrimination,” Dudley v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 924 F.Supp.2d 141, 155-156 (quoting Lipscomb v. Winter, 577 F.Supp.2d 258, 271 (D.D.C. 2008)). But the District misreads the relevant EEOC charges. In fact, both charges refer to the degree requirement, and thus exhaust a distinct claim of discrimination based on that policy. See, e.g., Mot. Summ. J., Ex. O at 1 (“[CFSA] created a new position, Family Support Workers .,. and made attainment of a Bachelor’s Degree as a prerequisite to obtaining that position .... A greater proportion of the white employees do have a college degree .... ”). Third, the District argues that the relevant EEOC charges are not sufficiently similar to the claims raised by other Plaintiffs “in light of the individual decisions underlying the RIF. and the. subsequent