As explained below, there is substantial doctrinal confusion regarding the scope of the allegations that an employment discrimination plaintiff may raise for the first time in court. Here, however, the Court will not attempt to resolve that confusion, because it concludes that the majority of Hyson’s allegations are unexhausted regardless of which standard is applied. A. Administrative Exhaustion of Claims Before the Office of Compliance As described above, the CAA requires that employees follow the counseling and mediation procedures prescribed therein before bringing a CAA claim in federal court. 2 U.S.C. §§ 1401, 1404, 1408. These exhaustion requirements are jurisdictional in nature. Id. §§ 1408, 1410; Blackmon-Malloy v. U.S. Capitol Police Bd., 575 F.3d 699, 705-06 (D.C.Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>). This Court thus lacks jurisdiction over any
holding that failure to comply with statutory prerequisite deprived the courts of subjectmatter jurisdiction holding that standing is component of subjectmatter jurisdiction and subjectmatter jurisdiction is essential to courts authority to hear case holding that minnstat  504b121 does not deprive the district court subjectmatter jurisdiction over ownership claims in an eviction action when a tenant challenges a landlords title holding that standing is component of subjectmatter jurisdiction holding that the caas counseling and mediation requirements deprive the courts of subjectmatter jurisdiction over nonexhausted claims