639 A.2d 1379, 1382 (R.I.1994), we declared that “[t]he purpose of an injunction is to prevent imminent, irreparable injury. * * * To require exhaustion of administrative remedies before seeking injunctive relief would destroy the effectiveness of such relief* * *.” If respondent were serious in his contention that he was fired because of his age, he could have asserted age and/or disabili ty discrimination as an additional ground for injunctive relief, notwithstanding his lack of a right-to-sue letter. We are satisfied that it was respondent’s own choices, not the operation of a formal barrier, that prevented Plunkett from litigating all his issues in one lawsuit. In Narragansett Electric Co. v. Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights, 118 R.I. 457, 459, 374 A.2d 1022, (2d Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). These decisions have rested upon a plaintiffs
holding age discrimination claim barred holding race and gender discrimination claim barred holding that the plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies with respect to gender discrimination and retaliation claims where she had only asserted discrimination based on race and disability in her eeoc complaint holding that a plaintiff could not assert a  1981 claim based on gender discrimination holding disability discrimination claim barred