report. (emphasis added). The District Judge affirmed the Magistrate Judge’s order granting fees in toto. The District Judge stated, inter alia: [T]he EEOC unequivocally based its case on Peoplemark’s alleged categorical prohibition against the “hiring of any person with a criminal record.” ... Had the EEOC conducted a reasonable investigation in the years leading up to filing its lawsuit, or had it reviewed the evidence provided to it throughout the course of discovery, it would have quickly realized its theory of liability as pled was untenable ... the magistrate judge ... correctly concluded that the EEOC should have been aware of the fatal flaw in its case no later than October 1, 2009. See ... EEOC v. CRST Van Expedited, Inc., No. 07-cv-95, 2010 WL 520564 (N.D.Iowa Feb. 9, 2010) (<HOLDING>); EEOC v. Cintas Corp., Nos. 04-40132,
holding that retaliation arising out of first eeoc filing was reasonably related to that filing obviating the need for a second eeoc charge holding eeoc lacked foundation to proceed based on failure to reasonably investigate  holding that the eeoc has authority to investigate a broader picture of discrimination that appears during the investigation of an individual charge holding that because the state failed to properly file the complaint the district court lacked jurisdiction to proceed to trial holding failure to timely identify aggrieved parties and reasonably investigate such claims warranted attorney fee award against the eeoc 