April 28, 2011 absence has been withdrawn. See Am. Compl. ¶ 23. Her counsel now argues that she had only “a little bit of leave.” Tr. at 24:2. Since Ms. Rashad admittedly had insufficient leave to cover a full-day absence, which she took without prior notice or approval, the AWOL warning was neither discriminatory nor retaliatory. 11 . The D.C. Circuit has identified the divide in authority on this issue but has yet to adopt a position. See Payne, 619 F.3d at 65 (stating that "[w]e need not decide whether Morgan did in fact overtake that line of cases,” referring to those "cases that permitf] federal employees to litigate unfiled claims that are 'like or reasonably related to’ claims they did file with their agencies”); see also Weber v. Battista, 494 F.3d 179, 183-84 (D.C.Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). 12 . Count II also fails on the merits. The
holding that administrative remedies must be exhausted prior to filing a claim in court holding that if adequate administrative remedies are available it is improper to seek relief in court before those remedies are exhausted recognizing contrasting positions taken by federal courts of appeal and concluding that we need not adopt either of the foregoing views in order to conclude  that plaintiff exhausted her administrative remedies holding that we lack jurisdiction to consider claims raised in a petition for review unless the petitioner has exhausted his administrative remedies holding that federal prisoners need not exhaust their administrative remedies before filing suit in federal court