L.Ed.2d 75,5 (2002) (“[T]he EEOC does not function simply as a vehicle for conducting litigation on behalf of private parties.”); EEOC v. Sidley Austin LLP, 437 F.3d 695, 696 (7th Cir. 2006) (“[T]he Commission is not bound by the failure of the Sidley ex-partners to exhaust their remedies; the Commission had no duty to exhaust,”). We need not address whether the EEOC is subject to the same strict timing requirements as private litigants because it is undisputed that the aggrieved employees here alleged acts that occurred within the 300 days prior to Hancock’s charge. 9 . We have also rejected the notion that an EEOC lawsuit on behalf of a class of employees must be confined to the allegations in the original charge. EEOC v. Hearst Corp., 553 F.2d 579, 580-81 (9th Cir.1976) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>); EEOC v. Occidental Life Ins., 535 F.2d 533,
holding eeoc could maintain action alleging discrimination against male employees in the administration of the retirement system although original charge was filed by female alleging discrimination on the basis of her sex holding that an original eeoc charge is sufficient to support  a civil suit under the act for any discrimination  developed in the course of a reasonable investigation of that charge provided such discrimination was included in the reasonable cause determination of the eeoc holding that because the amendment added a new substantive theory which is fundamentally distinct from the original race discrimination charge it did not relate to or grow out of the plaintiffs original eeoc charge holding eeoc could maintain an action alleging discrimination against women and minority groups although the original charge alleged only discrimination against males holding that regarded as claim is reasonably related to claim of discrimination on the basis of disability alleged in eeoc charge