a subsequent Title VII lawsuit”) Both plaintiffs filed charges with the EEOC alleging failure to promote due to discrimination based on their national origin. (Pl.’s Opp’n, Ex. 1 & 2.) These charges do not mention instances of harassment or describe a hostile work environment, and instead, quite simply and clearly allege a discriminatory failure to promote. (See id.) A reasonable investigation triggered by these charges would not encompass whether a hostile work environment existed. Thus, plaintiffs’ claim of harassment or a hostile work environment under Title VII will be dismissed without leave to amend because plaintiffs did not include such allegations in their charges with the EEOC and failed to exhaust administrative remedies with respect to this claim. See Evans, 80 F.3d at 963 (<HOLDING>); Pritchett v. Gen. Motors Corp., 650 F.Supp.
holding plaintiffs claim of sexual harassment was beyond the scope of the administrative charge where plaintiff had charged only discriminatory failure to promote holding that illegal sexual harassment is an illegitimate corporate activity beyond the scope of the supervisors employment holding sexual harassment claim was not like or related to retaliation allegations and therefore was outside the scope of the administrative charge holding that eeoc charge filed by plaintiff more than 180 days after alleged incident of sexual harassment was timely where alleged sexual harassment violation continued as hostile work environment through time of plaintiffs termination holding that restatement  2191 is inapplicable to alleged sexual harassment by a supervisor was sexual harassment within the scope of antonis employment of course not