and I authorize the EEOC to look into the discrimination I described above,” qualifies as a “charge.” Henderson v. Bank of Am., N.A., Civ. Action No. 2:14-cv-895, 2015 WL 2374519, at *2 (E.D.Tex. May 15, 2015); Crevier-Gerukos v. Eisai Inc., Civ. Action No. H-11-0434, 2012 WL 681723, at *8 (S.D.Tex. Feb. 29, 2012) (citing additional unpublished cases in support of proposition). On the other hand, an intake questionnaire that has a checked Box 2, next to the statement “I want to talk to añ EEOC employee before deciding to file a charge of discrimination,” and “I understand that by checking this box, I have not filed a charge with the EEOC” does not constitute a charge. See Lugo-Young v. Courier Network, Inc., No. 10-CV-3197 (RRM)(LB), 2012 WL 847381, at *6 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 13, 2012) (<HOLDING>); see also Hawthorne v. Vatterott Educ. Ctrs.
holding in accordance with other circuits that an intake questionnaire may serve as a charge of discrimination if the circumstances of the case demonstrate that the charging party manifested the intent to activate the administrative process holding that based on plain language in box 2 plaintiffs intake questionnaire could not be construed as timely eeoc charge holding that the timely filing of an eeoc charge is subject to waiver estoppel and equitable tolling holding an intake questionnaire to constitute a charge under the adea upon application of the manifestation of intent test although the eeoc did not consider the questionnaire to be a charge and the aggrieved person subsequently filed a formal charge holding that plaintiffs filing with the eeoc constituted a formal charge because the plaintiff attached a statement to the filed intake questionnaire that included a request for the agency to act