in hours. See Carson v. Sim, 778 F.Supp.2d 85, 92-93 (D.D.C.2011) (dismissing unexhausted claims where plaintiff provided no evidence he attempted to exhaust administrative remedies). Indeed, plaintiffs only retaliation claim before the EEOC was that her manager had informed her that she and her sister could not work at the same Starbucks store. (See Charge of Discrimination at 1.) Plaintiffs alleged reduction in hours is not reasonably related to plaintiffs claims before the EEOC such that it would fall within the scope of “the administrative investigation that can reasonably be expected to follow” plaintiffs EEOC charge. See Park, 71 F.3d at 907 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 114, 122 S.Ct. 2061, 153 L.Ed.2d 106 (2002) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the Court will dismiss
holding vague charge of discrimination in an internal letter or memorandum is insufficient to constitute opposition to an unlawful employment practice holding that the conduct complained of must be an unlawful employment practice under title vii holding that in the first amendment employment context harassing speech must constitute constructive adverse employment action to be actionable holding that each incident of discrimination and each retaliatory adverse employment decision constitutes a separate actionable unlawful employment practice  for which an administrative charge must be filed holding in the context of a title yii claim that discrete acts such as termination  or refusals to hire are separate retaliatory adverse employment decisions that each constitutes a separate actionable unlawful employment practice 