"[A] charge is sufficient when the [EEOC] receives from the person making the charge a written statement sufficiently precise to identify the parties, and to describe generally the action or practices complained of.” 29 C.F.R. § 1601.12(b). 6 . The regulation provides in relevant part: "A charge may be amended to cure technical defects or omissions, including failure to verify the charge_ Such amendments ... will relate back to the date the charge was first received.” 29 C.F.R. § 1601.12(b). 7 .Several circuits hold that an Intake Questionnaire cannot serve as an administrative charge. See Park v. Howard Univ., 71 F.3d 904, 908-09 (D.C.Cir.1995), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 57, 136 L.Ed.2d 20 (1996); EEOC v. Appalachian Power Co., 568 F.2d 354, 355 (4th Cir.1978) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). But see Balazs v. Liebenthal, 32 F.3d 151
holding that because trial court actually gave part of a jury charge that appellant claimed was improperly omitted and because remainder of courts charge adequately defined one of the legal terms at issue the courts jury charge taken as a whole was not misleading and did not constitute reversible error holding that where the writings on file were insufficient to constitute an effective charge a charge had not been effectively filed despite the fact that the eeoc had assigned the case a charge number holding that a charge not taken under oath or affirmation is not a valid charge holding that where statute did not indicate whether discrimination charge must be verified  under oath or affirmation  when filed statute was open to interpretation and sustaining agencys conclusion that verification could be filed after timely charge was submitted because that interpretation was reasonable holding that jurys failure to address first degree murder charge amounted to a verdict of not guilty on that charge