about all eight incidents and several relevant dates. He also advised Toledo that he was “working on additional information * * * to add [to] and clarify [his] complaint.” J.A. 61. Toledo claims that he never received any further information from Crawford. The Department dismissed Crawford’s complaint on August 7,2012, for a purported failure to contact an EEO Counselor within 45 days of the alleged discriminatory events. Crawford took the optional step of appealing that decision to the EEOC. The EEOC affirmed the dismissal on December 13, 2013. C Three months later, Crawford filed a pro se complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia alleging race discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work envi . 389, 405-406, 128 S.Ct. 1147, 170 L.Ed.2d 10 (2008) (<HOLDING>). That approach is consistent with how
holding in accordance with other circuits that an intake questionnaire may serve as a charge of discrimination if the circumstances of the case demonstrate that the charging party manifested the intent to activate the administrative process holding that based on plain language in box 2 plaintiffs intake questionnaire could not be construed as timely eeoc charge holding that plaintiffs filing with the eeoc constituted a formal charge because the plaintiff attached a statement to the filed intake questionnaire that included a request for the agency to act holding an intake questionnaire to constitute a charge under the adea upon application of the manifestation of intent test although the eeoc did not consider the questionnaire to be a charge and the aggrieved person subsequently filed a formal charge holding that in light of a worksharing agreement between the state agency and the eeoc a charge of discrimination filed with the state agency was properly filed with the eeoc on the same date