documents attached to a motion to dismiss that are referred to in the complaint and central to the claim are deemed to form a part of the pleadings). III. ANALYSIS A. Compliance with Administrative Procedures Defendant contends that Plaintiffs claims based on conduct that occurred pri- or to March 12, 2011 are untimely and must be dismissed. After carefully reviewing the pleadings, and considering the relevant authorities, the Court finds that Defendant’s argument is well-taken. Congress has mandated that a Title VII complainant must seek relief through an established administrative mechanism before filing suit in federal court, and that the administrative process must be fully exhausted before the court can act. See Brown v. City of Cleveland, 294 Fed.Appx. 226, 233 (6th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); see also Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, 455
holding that the timely filing of a discrimination charge with the eeoc is not a jurisdictional prerequisite but a requirement that like a statute of limitations is subject to waiver estoppel and equitable tolling recognizing that exhaustion of state administrative remedies is not required as a prerequisite to bringing an action pursuant to  1983 holding that the timely filing of an administrative charge of discrimination is a prerequisite to bringing suit holding exhaustion of regulatory administrative process is jurisdictional prerequisite to district court hearing discrimination claim recognizing that exhaustion of state administrative remedies is not a prerequisite to bringing a  1983 action