feelings about the candidates may mask discrimination.”). Third, although not dispositive on the issue of whether there was discrimination in this case, an issue regarding the legitimacy of the reason provided by DCPS for plaintiffs termination is raised by the subsequent hiring of Rebecca Christian, a woman under the age of 30, who did not have the qualifications the plaintiff had as a social by plaintiff, which the Court concludes support an inference of discrimination, this is also a question for a jury, not the Court, to resolve. Finally, an issue is raised regarding the lack of any explanation from DCPS about who decided to eliminate one of the two social studies teacher positions. Although this issue standing alone might not be material, see, e.g., Clifton, 36 F.Supp.2d at 24 (<HOLDING>), in conjunction with the fact that director
holding that a title vii plaintiff could not hold coworkers liable in their individual capacities under title vii holding that ambiguity regarding why plaintiff was reassigned to new position from which she was eventually terminated did not standing alone preclude summary judgment on plaintiffs title vii claim holding that title vii claim was subject to compulsory arbitration holding that a plaintiff may not raise a new legal claim in response to summary judgment holding that failure to promote claim requires that plaintiff apply for  the position sought and granting summary judgment on title vii failure to promote claim where plaintiff did not apply for higher position quotation marks and citations omitted