[EEOC] is a prerequisite to bringing a subsequent suit under the ADEA, adoption of the district court’s holding would foreclose ever bringing an action alleging age discrimination violative of both the ADEA and Ohio law in federal court. Such a result would run contrary to the interrelated, and complementary nature of federal and state employment discrimination procedures. See 1986 WL 16659, at *3-4. Despite the holdings in Lafferty and McLaughlin, several recent decisions by district courts within the Sixth Circuit have held that the mere filing of a charge with the EEOC qualifies as an election of remedy pursuant to § 4112.05, precluding the plaintiff from seeking a judicial remedy under state law. See Williams v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2005 WL 1126761, at *2-4 (N.D.Ohio Apr.19, 2005) (<HOLDING>); see Gray v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2005 WL
holding that retaliation arising out of first eeoc filing was reasonably related to that filing obviating the need for a second eeoc charge holding that failure of eeoc to transmit charge to phrc within limitations period was subject to equitable tolling where plaintiff requested crossfiling in the cover letter attached to the eeoc charge on the first page of the charge itself and on an official form used by the eeoc for requests for dualfiling holding that a plaintiff who has filed a charge with the eeoc is foreclosed from pursuing a state civil action under  411202 because filing a charge with the eeoc is equivalent to the election of an administrative remedy under  411205 holding that an original eeoc charge is sufficient to support  a civil suit under the act for any discrimination  developed in the course of a reasonable investigation of that charge provided such discrimination was included in the reasonable cause determination of the eeoc holding that in light of a worksharing agreement between the state agency and the eeoc a charge of discrimination filed with the state agency was properly filed with the eeoc on the same date