Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): The allegations of retaliation found in the FAC are not “like or reasonably related” to the allegations contained in the charge. Nor are the new claims of retaliation consistent with Plaintiffs original theory of the case — sex discrimination and hostile work environment. Plaintiffs EEOC charge does not include an allegation of retaliation or facts that would support the claim of retaliation she now makes. Her charge to the EEOC was narrow in scope, focusing exclusively on sex discrimination. The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff did not exhaust her retaliation claim at the administrative level and will dismiss her retaliation claims under Title VII and ACRA for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Epps v. Phoenix Elementary Sch. Dist., 2009 WL 996308 (D.Ariz. April 14, 2009) (<HOLDING>). B. Negligent Misrepresentation (Third Claim 
 Holding statements: (A) holding plaintiff did not exhaust his retaliation claim where his eeoc charge made no mention of retaliation (B) holding that a title vii retaliation claim was not properly before the court because although the plaintiff had not been fired when he filed his complaint the plaintiff never amended his complaint to include a claim of retaliation based on his termination (C) holding that if the alleged retaliatory action occurs before the initial eeoc charge is filed a plaintiff must exhaust his administrative remedies as to that claim by including factual information in the charge that discloses the factual basis for the retaliation claim (D) holding that a plaintiff need not exhaust his administrative remedies to bring a retaliation claim (E) holding court did not have jurisdiction to hear plaintiffs retaliation claim where plaintiff did not check the retaliation box or describe anything that indicates such a claim in the eeoc complaint
Output (English): holding that a plaintiff need not exhaust his administrative remedies to bring a retaliation claim