Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): 915 F.2d at 39 n. 4. Perch’s cancer-related civil claims allege the same types of discrimination (gender and disability), and are based on the same type of conduct (refusal to change shift and grant additional sick time) as her CFS-related administrative charge. While the defendant’s acts regarding Perch’s CFS-related disability and her cancer-related disability are different, the difference is only temporal, not qualitative. The MCAD had ample opportunity to investigate both charges, whether or not it actually did so. Accordingly, I conclude that the cancer-related claims survive under the scope-of-the-investigation rule. V. ORDER For the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s motion to dismiss is DENIED. 1 . See Beddall v. State Street Bank and Trust Co., 137 F.3d 12, 17 (1st Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); Edwin v. Blenwood Assocs., 9 F.Supp.2d 70, 72 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a court may consider a document submitted by a defendant in determining whether to dismiss the complaint because it was integral to and explicitly relied on in the complaint and because the plaintiffs do not challenge its authenticity (B) holding that in connection with a motion to dismiss the court may consider a document not attached to the pleadings where the plaintiffs claim depends on the contents of a document the defendant attaches the document to its motion to dismiss and the parties do not dispute the authenticity of the document even though the plaintiff does not explicitly allege the contents of that document in the complaint (C) holding that the failure to attempt to prove the authenticity of a document  is significant particularly when the document in question was apparently obtained for removal proceedings rather than a contemporaneously created record of a past event (D) holding that a court in deciding a rule 12b6 motion may consider a document that is incorporated by reference into the complaint (E) holding that when  a complaints factual allegations are expressly linked  and admittedly dependent upon  a document the authenticity of which is not challenged that document effectively merges into the pleadings and the trial court can review it in deciding a motion to dismiss under rule 12b 6
Output (English): holding that the failure to attempt to prove the authenticity of a document  is significant particularly when the document in question was apparently obtained for removal proceedings rather than a contemporaneously created record of a past event