their Title VII claims prior to raising them for the first time in a lawsuit, and the law in this Circuit is clear that an allegation as to one type of discrimination does not exhaust all administrative remedies as to another type of alleged discrimination. See Siegel v. Kreps, 654 F.2d 773, 776 (D.C.Cir.1981) (affirming district court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs religious discrimination claim because it was raised for the first time in his civil action and was not subject to administrative exhaustion); Nyunt v. Tomlinson, 543 F.Supp.2d 25, 35-36 (D.D.C.2008) (dismissing the plaintiffs national origin discrimination claim because the plaintiff only identified race discrimination and retaliation in his EEOC complaint); Brown v. District of Columbia, 251 F.Supp.2d 152, 162 (D.D.C.2003) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the Court shall dismiss
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 plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies for her gender discrimination claim because she only checked the boxes for age discrimination and retaliation holding race and gender discrimination claim barred holding that a plaintiff could not show that she engaged in protected activity because she did not present evidence that she informed her employer that her complaints were based on race or age discrimination holding that a plaintiff need not exhaust his administrative remedies to bring a retaliation claim