that although individual employees cannot be held liable under Title VII, the text and history of the DCHRA suggest no similar bar. The DCHRA’s definition of employer is broader than Title VIPs and includes “any person acting in the interest of such employer, directly or indirectly.” D.C.Code Ann. §§ 2-1401.02(10). The DCHRA also makes it unlawful to aid and abet, or to attempt, any of the discriminatory acts forbidden by the statute. Id. § 2-1402.62. These textual provisions “find[ ] no analogue in the federal statute.” Wallace, 715 A.2d at 889. Thus, Wallace held that law firm partners alleged to have participated in unlawful discriminatory conduct could be held liable individually. Id.; see also Lance v. United Mine Workers of Am.1974 Pension Trust, 400 F.Supp.2d 29, 31 (D.D.C.2005) (<HOLDING>); MacIntosh v. Bldg. Owners & Managers Ass’n
holding that a civil rights plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under fmla against individual individual is not employer subject to liability under the act holding that a prior suit and a subsequent suit between the same parties did not involve the same claim because the evidence necessary to sustain the subsequent suit was insufficient to entitle the plaintiff to relief in the prior suit holding that a state agency is not a person subject to suit under federal false claims act holding plaintiffs supervisor subject to suit holding individual defendants subject to suit