v. Texas Iron Works, 813 S.W.2d 483, 485-86 (Tex.1991) (explaining that Chapter 21 “establishes "a comprehensive administrative review system to carry out the policies embodied in Title VII” and “clearly encourages compliance through voluntary resolution, conference, conciliation, and persuasion — informal processes other than litigation”). •When an employee disclaims any intent to file a charge, the request does not trigger any investigation or attempt at a resolution. Allowing the employee to bring suit against her employer without first exhausting those .administrative remedies would frustrate the intent behind both federal and state statutory schemes. See Patterson, 491 U.S. at 180-81, 109 S.Ct. at 2374-75; Waffle House, Inc. v. Williams, 313 S.W.3d 796, 809, 811-12 (Tex.2010) (<HOLDING>); City of Waco v. Lopez, 259 S.W.3d 147, 154-55
recognizing that exhaustion of state administrative remedies is not a prerequisite to bringing a  1983 action holding that claim for sexual harassment exists only under statute which preempts any common law claim based on allegations giving rise to statutory claim plaintiff cannot evade statutory exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement and other unique features of chapter 21 by bringing suit under commonlaw theory recognizing that exhaustion of state administrative remedies is not required as a prerequisite to bringing an action pursuant to  1983 holding exhaustion of administrative remedies not required prior to bringing statutory claim under erisa recognizing that issue exhaustion requirement and requirement exhaustion of remedies are different