in his employment by the Department. Crawford’s complaint asserted the following racially discriminatory actions: his October 2011 annual performance rating of “zero,” his five-day suspension finalized' in December 2011, and his denial of promotion in November 2011. The complaint also raised the eight incidents identified in Toledo’s email. On the Department’s motion, the district court first dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) the eight claims identified in Toledo’s email for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. See Crawford v. Johnson, No. 14-cv-00436-KBJ (D.D.C. Feb. 9, 2015), J.A. 41-42. Crawford does not challenge the dismissal of those claims here. With respect to the performance review, suspension, and failure-to-promote claims, the di ir. 2004) (<HOLDING>); cf. Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552
holding that an officials failure to forward a complaint letter on the basis that plaintiff had filed an eeo complaint was direct evidence of retaliation holding that a title vii retaliation claim was not properly before the court because although the plaintiff had not been fired when he filed his complaint the plaintiff never amended his complaint to include a claim of retaliation based on his termination 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 plaintiff exhausted administrative remedies based on additional sheets attached to eeo complaint holding plaintiff had exhausted claim because his attachment to his eeo complaint set forth sufficient factual details