Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): parameters of her administrative complaint.” Def.’s Reply at 6. The plaintiff, however, included a hostile work environment claim in her EEO complaint filed in March 2005. Def.’s Mot., Ex. 8. Accordingly, the defendant has not met his burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies. Brown v. Marsh, 777 F.2d 8, 13 (D.C.Cir.1985). 3 . Failing to provide notice or requiring a party to expend significantly more time, money or effort than reasonably expected may constitute undue prejudice. See, e.g., Marcoux v. Shell Oil Products Co. LLC, 524 F.3d 33, 43 n. 9 (1st Cir.2008) (determining that “defendants suffer undue prejudice as a result of delay or lack of notice’’); Chainey v. Street, 523 F.3d 200, 210 n. 5 (3d Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>) (internal citation omitted); Dzwonkowski v. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that laches is an affirmative defense (B) holding that fair use is an affirmative defense (C) holding that unpleaded affirmative defense was properly considered by the district court where plaintiff had notice of the defense and an opportunity to respond (D) holding that a defendant avoids  causing undue prejudice by providing the plaintiff with notice and the opportunity to challenge an affirmative defense (E) holding that defendant does not waive an affirmative defense if defendant raises it at a pragmatically sufficient time such as summary judgment and the defendants failure raise the affirmative defense in its answer did not cause the plaintiff prejudice
Output (English): holding that defendant does not waive an affirmative defense if defendant raises it at a pragmatically sufficient time such as summary judgment and the defendants failure raise the affirmative defense in its answer did not cause the plaintiff prejudice