a federal employee needs to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing a claim of retaliation. While the D.C. Circuit “has declined to weigh in on the issue,” Lewis v. Dist. of Columbia, 535 F.Supp.2d 1, 7 (D.D.C.2008) (citing Weber v. Battista, 494 F.3d 179, 183-84 (D.C.Cir.2007)), one view is that “Morgan has, on the whole, been understood to ... bar [unexhausted claims of retaliation based on] discrete acts occurring after the time period, after the filing of an administrative complaint, when a plaintiff does not file a new complaint or amend the old complaint but instead presents these acts for the first time in federal court.” Romero-Ostolaza v. Ridge, 370 F.Supp.2d 139, 149 (D.D.C. 2005) ; see also Adams v. Mineta, Civil Action No. 04-856(RBW), 2006 WL 3678 8 (D.D.C.2008) (<HOLDING>); Turner v. Dist. of Columbia, 383 F.Supp.2d
holding that federal prisoners need not exhaust their administrative remedies before filing suit in federal court holding plaintiff did not exhaust his retaliation claim where his eeoc charge made no mention of retaliation holding that plaintiff could not look to the courts for relief because he did not exhaust his administrative remedies under the adea holding that a plaintiff need not exhaust his administrative remedies to bring a retaliation claim holding that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies by failing to include issue in case brief