by the specific language of the charge filed with the agency, but rather, may encompass acts of discrimination which the MCAD investigation could reasonably be expected to uncover.” Davis v. Lucent Technologies, 251 F.3d 227, 233 (1st Cir.2001). Application of the scope-of-the-investigation rule requires a fact-specific inquiry into the similarities between the administrative charge and the civil complaint. See Powers, 915 F.2d at 38 (“claims are cognizable if they are like or reasonably related to the allegations of the charge and grow out of such allegations” (internal quotation omitted)). Additional claims may proceed when they 1) allege the same type of discrimination and 2) are based on the same type of conduct as the administrative charge. See, e.g., Powers, 915 F.2d at 38 (<HOLDING>); Edwin v. Blenwood Associates, 9 F.Supp.2d 70,
holding that plaintiff who filed administrative charge for racial harassment and discrimination could add claim for retaliation because some of the same facts supported both types of claims holding that claimant exhausted administrative remedies only as to the complaints made in the original charge and factually related claims that reasonably could be expected to grow out of the administrative investigation of that charge recognizing similar analysis applies to discrimination and retaliation claims holding that the same standard applies to claims of discrimination based upon gender and age holding that plaintiff could bring generalized civil claims even though administrative charge included only particularized claims since both complaints alleged age discrimination based on similar conduct