describes the action or practices the claimant challenges. Id. § 1601.12(b). Milliren’s amended charge of individual and systemic discrimination complies with the statutory and administrative requirements. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b); 29 C.F.R. § 1601.12. The charge was made in writing and under oath. The charge pointed to specific incidents of alleged gender discrimination experienced by Milliren while in the GMDP and included the dates of those incidents. It identified women as the victims of Schwan’s alleged discriminatory practices and specified the position of general manager as an occupational category from which Milliren believed Schwan’s exclude ate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 111 S.Ct. 1647, 114 L.Ed.2d 26 (1991); EEOC v. S.C. Nat’l Bank, 562 F.2d 329, 332 (4th Cir.1977) (<HOLDING>). Schwan’s also argues that Milliren’s systemic
holding that timeliness is not a defense to an eeoc subpoena enforcement action holding that a valid defense to a subsequent lawsuit does not prevent an eeoc investigation 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 the pjlaintiff was not seeking the enforcement of a final eeoc order because he specifically requested more relief than the eeoc awarded holding that plaintiff stated a discrimination claim despite not including a discrimination heading in eeoc complaint because the facts included in eeoc complaint were sufficient to trigger an investigation into whether plaintiff suffered an adverse action because of his religion