No box is provided on. the form for harassment, and plaintiff did not check the “other” box. The particulars stated in the charge are as follows: I. I was hired by the above named employer in April 2000. My current position title is Registered Nurse. II. In Dec. 2006 I learned that my Supervisor knowingly allowed me to be assigned in an area of the hospital that was near construction, which subsequently was the cause of my disability exacerbating in the previous months. This lead to unexpected absences. I was disciplined for my absences in December 2006. As a result of this action, I had a life threatening attack. III. In Dec. 2006 I requested a reasonable accommodation to be assigned to a unit away from the construction. My request wasn’t nc., 371 F.3d 1020, 1025 (8th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). The Court concludes that plaintiffs Charge of
holding sexual harassment claim was not like or related to retaliation allegations and therefore was outside the scope of the administrative charge holding that retaliation claim was reasonably related to prior sex discrimination claim holding that restatement  2191 is inapplicable to alleged sexual harassment by a supervisor was sexual harassment within the scope of antonis employment of course not holding plaintiffs claim of sexual harassment was beyond the scope of the administrative charge where plaintiff had charged only discriminatory failure to promote holding individual employee may assert unexhausted retaliation claim if the later claim is reasonably related to the allegations in the employees timely filed charge