885 F.2d 1305, 1312 (7th Cir.1989). Thus, the court will deny defendants’ motion to dismiss COUNT II of plaintiffs complaint for failure to exhaust remedies. Similarly, Ms. Carter did not even hint "in .her EEOC charge that she was harassed based on race (COUNT V); nor did she amend her EEOC charge to indicate that she reapplied for a job with RUS and was discriminatorily denied a position (COUNT III). Such harassment and discriminatory failure to rehire allegations are not reasonably related to a charge of discriminatory termination. See, e.g., Miller v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp., 755 F.2d 20 (2nd Cir.1985) (failure to rehire claim dismissed because not reasonably within scope of discriminatory termination EEOC charge); Oxman v. WLS-TV, 12 F.3d 652, 660 (7th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); Rush v. McDonald’s Corp., 966 F.2d 1104,
holding that discriminatory failure to rehire and termination are not reasonably related holding that retaliation claim was reasonably related to prior sex discrimination claim holding that a failure to accommodate claim is separate and distinct from a claim of discriminatory treatment under the ada and pointing out that a failure to accommodate claim and a claim of discriminatory treatment under the ada are not like or reasonably related to one another and one cannot expect a failure to accommodate claim to develop from an investigation into a claim that an employee was terminated because of a disability holding that plaintiffs claims of discriminatory demotion and termination as set forth in eeoc charge were not like or related to his claims of harassment by another individual holding that an atwill employee may sue under  1981 for racially discriminatory termination