she failed to file a charge of race discrimination with the EEOC within 300 days, as required. See D.C.’s Mem. at 12-15. The District is correct. The plaintiffs addendum was filed 718 days after the alleged discrimination, and plaintiffs full EEOC charge was filed 1109 days after the alleged discrimination. These are plainly outside the applicable time limits. Moreover, the plaintiffs subsequent filings cannot be said to “relate back” to the original EEOC charge, as they add an entirely new substantive theory. See, e.g., Marshall, 536 F.Supp.2d at 67 (“[W]here administrative complaints for discrimination based- on sex, race and retaliation do not mention critical facts relevant to an age discrimination claim, the later filed age claims do not relate back.”); Wilson, 767 F.Supp. at 306 (<HOLDING>). The District has met its burden to prove a
holding that an original eeoc charge is sufficient to support  a civil suit under the act for any discrimination  developed in the course of a reasonable investigation of that charge provided such discrimination was included in the reasonable cause determination of the eeoc holding that claimant exhausted administrative remedies only as to the complaints made in the original charge and factually related claims that reasonably could be expected to grow out of the administrative investigation of that charge holding eeoc could maintain an action alleging discrimination against women and minority groups although the original charge alleged only discrimination against males holding that because the amendment added a new substantive theory which is fundamentally distinct from the original race discrimination charge it did not relate to or grow out of the plaintiffs original eeoc charge 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