used by the Department is explicit that employees “may * * * attach extra sheets” to identify and explicate the claims asserted in “[d]escrib[ing] the action taken against [them] that [they] believe was discriminatory[.]” J.A. 25. To hold, then, that attachments do not suffice to present a claim would pull the rug out from under claimants. Our case law and that of our sister circuits have treated attachments to an EEO complaint as part of the complaint itself and a basis for articulating claims. See Brooks v. District Hosp. Partners, 606 F.3d 800, 808 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (individuals included in a list attached to a complaint were included within the complainant’s reference to similarly situated individuals); accord Asebedo v. Kansas State Univ., 559 Fed.Appx. 668, 672 (10th Cir. 2014) (<HOLDING>); Agolli v. Office Depot, Inc., 548 Fed.Appx.
holding plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies based on additional sheets attached to eeo complaint holding plaintiff had exhausted sex discrimination claim because inter alia she had identified an instance of disparate treatment in an attachment to her eeo complaint holding that a similar claim in a rule 32 petition was procedurally barred because it was raised at trial and because it was raised on direct appeal holding that administrative remedies must be exhausted prior to filing a claim in court holding plaintiff exhausted discrimination claim because he had raised it in an attached narrative