after, if not as a result of, an employee’s invocation of the EEOC process.” Munoz Rivera v. Walgreens Co., 428 F.Supp.2d 11, 22 (D.P.R.2006) (quoting Kenney v. MML Investors Servs., 266 F.Supp.2d 239, 245-46 (D.Mass.2003)) (internal quotation marks omitted). “The rule does not, however, provide a plaintiff with an unlimited license to extend his [or her] claim endlessly beyond the bounds and parameters encompassed by the admi L 2422330 at *2 (N.D.Tex. Aug. 05, 2009) (finding that although administrative remedies need not be exhausted prior to filing a retaliation claim growing out of a previously filed EEOC charge, “exhaustion is required where the alleged retaliatory acts occurred before filing the charge.”); Houston v. Army Fleet Servs., LLC, 509 F.Supp.2d 1033, 1044 (M.D.Ala.2007) (<HOLDING>); Wilson v. Palmer House Hilton, 2005 WL
holding that a plaintiff who has filed a charge with the eeoc is foreclosed from pursuing a state civil action under  411202 because filing a charge with the eeoc is equivalent to the election of an administrative remedy under  411205 holding that a plaintiff need not exhaust his administrative remedies to bring a retaliation claim holding plaintiff did not exhaust his retaliation claim where his eeoc charge made no mention of retaliation holding that regarded as claim is reasonably related to claim of discrimination on the basis of disability alleged in eeoc charge holding that if the alleged retaliatory action occurs before the initial eeoc charge is filed a plaintiff must exhaust his administrative remedies as to that claim by including factual information in the charge that discloses the factual basis for the retaliation claim