for a plaintiff to exhaust administrative remedies prior to urging a retaliation claim growing out of an earlier charge.” Id. at 414. The Gupta opinion gives several reasons for permitting such retaliation claims to proceed: It is the nature of retaliation claims that they arise after the filing of the EEOC charge.' Requiring prior resort to the EEOC would mean that two charges would have to be filed olding that retaliation claim may be raised for the first time in federal court); Carter v. South Cent. Bell, 912 F.2d 832 (5th Cir.) (reasoning that because other Title VII claims were properly before court, jurisdiction existed over retaliatory termination claim as well), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1260, 111 S.Ct. 2916, 115 L.Ed.2d 1079 (1991); Bouman v. Block, 940 F.2d 1211 (9th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1005, 112 S.Ct. 640,
holding individual employee may assert unexhausted retaliation claim if the later claim is reasonably related to the allegations in the employees timely filed charge holding that retaliation claim was reasonably related to prior sex discrimination claim holding that regarded as claim was reasonably related to claim of discrimination on the basis of disability holding that regarded as claim is reasonably related to claim of discrimination on the basis of disability alleged in eeoc charge holding discrimination based on pregnancy was not sex discrimination