what the worksharing agreement accomplished in this- case. The language of the agreement is not discretionary. It waives ERD’s right to exclusive jurisdiction for all charges which are to be initially processed by the EEOC, and further provides that the EEOC will initially process all charges filed more than 240 days after the date of violation. Hunt does not assert that the state had a contrary intent in executing the worksharing agreement, and in fact concedes that the language would normally effect a waiver. We therefore hold, consistent with its plain language, that the worksharing agreement is self-executing, and therefore the waiver of exclusive jurisdiction occurred at the time that the complaint was filed with the ERD. See Marlowe v. Bottarelli, 938 F.2d 807 (7th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); Ford v. Bernard Fineson Development Center,
holding there was no personal jurisdiction over nonresident guarantor of equipment lease although payments were made to illinois bank the guaranty was accepted in illinois and it provided that it would be gov erned by illinois law holding that waiver provision of illinois worksharing agreement was selfexecuting and worked instantaneous constructive termination of the states jurisdiction over the charge holding that new yorks worksharing agreement contained a selfexecuting waiver of the states right to exclusively handle discrimination claims for 60 days and that the waiver constituted a termination under  2000e5c holding that illinois wage law did not apply to nonresident employee who worked outside the state even though eim ployers primary place of business was in illinois holding that the united states breach of the plea agreement releases the defendant from the appeal waiver