granted him a right-to-sue letter. This Court has held that a plaintiff does not have to exhaust his or her administrative remedies before seeking injunc-tive relief against claimed discrimination or compensatory damages. In Ward v. City of Pawtucket Police Departmen bility to control his or her lawsuit. See Jang, 206 F.3d at 1149 (relying on plaintiffs duty to request a right-to-sue letter as well as a plaintiffs ability to stay proceedings and amend his or her complaint); Brzostowski, 49 F.3d at 339 (“[The plaintiff] could have delayed the filing of his first suit or requested that the court postpone or stay the first case. What he cannot do, as he did here, is split causes of action and use different theories of recovery as separate bases for multiple suits.”); Woods, 972 F.2d at 41 (<HOLDING>). We deem these principles wholly applicable to
holding that the issue of whether the plaintiffs claim was barred by an intervening cause was not an affirmative defense but merely an assertion that the plaintiff cannot prove a necessary element of its claim holding plaintiffs claim barred because she failed to take the minimal steps necessary to preserve each claim by either requesting a stay pending administrative proceedings or amending her original claim holding that defendants were not prejudiced by amendments to an employment discrimination claim because the original claim gave notice of the nature of the case holding disability discrimination claim barred holding age discrimination claim barred