a retaliation case — -a double filing that would serve no purpose except to create additional procedural technicalities when a single filing would comply with the intent of Title VII. We are reluctant to erect a needless procedural barrier to the private claimant under Title VII, especially since the EEOC relies largely upon the private lawsuit to obtain the goals of Title VII. Intertwined with this practical reason for our holding is a strong policy justification. Eliminating this needless procedural barrier will deter employers from attempting to discourage employees from exercising their rights under Title VIL Id. (citations omitted). Similar results have been reached by other circuits considering the same situation. See Kirkland v. Buffalo Bd. of Educ., 622 F.2d 1066 (2d Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>); Nealon v. Stone, 958 F.2d 584 (4th Cir.1992)
holding that retaliation arising out of first eeoc filing was reasonably related to that filing obviating the need for a second eeoc charge holding that plaintiffs claim of reduction in work hours in retaliation for her filing of eeoc charge states a cause of action under  1981 holding plaintiff did not exhaust his retaliation claim where his eeoc charge made no mention of retaliation holding that act of retaliation was directly related to plaintiffs initiation of litigation and that no second eeoc charge was necessary holding retaliation claim not reasonably related to discrimination charges where eeoc complaint set forth retaliation as a motive for plaintiffs termination and not as a motive for plaintiffs overtime assignments