the related but distinct doctrines of issue preclusion and claim preclusion. While claim preclusion “forecloses] successive litigation of the very same claim,” issue preclusion by contrast “refers to the effect of a prior judgment in foreclosing successive litigation of an issue .... ” New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 748-49, 121 S.Ct. 1808, 149 L.Ed.2d 968 (2001) (emphasis added). Therefore, issue preclusion cannot bar a subsequent claim. Nevertheless, issue preclusion may conclusively establish facts such that the plaintiffs claim must fail as a matter of law. Such is the case here. The plaintiffs ADEA and DCHRA claims both require proof that DCPS’s stated justification for her removal was pretextual. See Barnett v. PA Consulting Grp., Inc., 715 F.3d 354, 358 (D.C.Cir.2013) (<HOLDING>); Vatel v. Alliance of Auto. Mfrs., 627 F.3d
holding that the one central question at a title vii trial is whether the employee produced sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that  the employer intentionally discriminated against the employee on the basis of race color religion sex or national origin emphasis added holding that a jury could find employers proffered reason for termination pretext when plaintiff presented evidence that she had not violated company policy or was authorized to deviate from stated policy and employer never discussed alleged violations with her holding that at the summary judgment stage there must be sufficient evidence on which the jury could find for the plaintiff holding that to determine whether the employer intentionally discriminated against the employee the court examines if there is evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that the employers stated reason for the firing is pretext holding that proof that the employer acted in bad faith by using a pretext to discharge its employee is only one possible way of demonstrating that the employers stated reason was not a legitimate one