a complaint with either the EEOC, the federal agency authorized to investigate charges of discrimination, or the TWC, the Texas equivalent.” Prairie View A & M Univ. v. Chatha, 381 S.W.3d 500, 504 n. 4 (Tex.2012). When a claimant files suit under Chapter 21, he or she is limited to the “the specific issue made in the employee’s administrative complaint and any kind of discrimination like or related to the charge’s allegations.” Parker v. J.C. Penney Co., No. 05-03-01701-CV, 2005 WL 317758, at *3 (Tex.App.-Dallas Feb. 10, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.) (internal quotations and citation omitted); accord Univ. of Tex. v. Poindexter, 306 S.W.3d 798, 807 (Tex.App.-Austin 2009, no pet.); see also Tex. Dep’t. of Transp. v. Esters, 343 S.W.3d 226, 230 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2011, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). Retaliation is a distinct theory of liability
holding that an eeoc investigation of a hostile work environment could not reasonably be expected to grow out of a charge describing the denials of a promotion and a handicapped parking space holding that because the amendment added a new substantive theory which is fundamentally distinct from the original race discrimination charge it did not relate to or grow out of the plaintiffs original eeoc charge holding that administrative remedies must be exhausted prior to filing a claim in court recognizing that a claim is administratively exhausted if it is specifically stated in grows out of or is reasonably related to the substance of the allegations in an administrative charge or complaint 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