charges. Because of this failure, Ms. McKenzie’s claim of retaliation may be considered by this court only if it can be said that there is a “reasonable relationship” between the allegations against IDOT found in the charge and the allegations of Ms. McKenzie’s complaint. In the context of retaliation claims, several courts have addressed the precise situation that we now face. The Fifth Circuit, in Gupta v. East Texas State University, 654 F.2d 411 (5th Cir.1981), considered the case of a plaintiff who alleged retaliatory discharge after bringing discrimination charges against his employer, yet failed to assert this claim prior to filing his lawsuit. The Fifth Circuit held that it was “unnec L.Ed.2d 658 (1991); Brown v. Hartshorne Public Sch. Dist. No. 1, 864 F.2d 680 (10th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); Baker v. Buckeye Cellulose Corp., 856 F.2d
holding that a claim of retaliation for filing eeoc charges is cognizable under  1981 holding that act of retaliation was directly related to plaintiffs initiation of litigation and that no second eeoc charge was necessary holding that plaintiffs claim of reduction in work hours in retaliation for her filing of eeoc charge states a cause of action under  1981 holding that the timely filing of an eeoc charge is subject to waiver estoppel and equitable tolling holding that retaliation arising out of first eeoc filing was reasonably related to that filing obviating the need for a second eeoc charge