the Conciliation; and (3) the MCAD sent the defendant an Interrogatory about them. Defendant strenuously denies that it was notified of the expanded claims even if the MCAD was presented with the new allegations, and points out that amendments to an MCAD charge must be made in writing. See 804 C.M.R. ¶¶ 1.05(1) & 1.10(6)(b). This poini/counterpoint is beside the point. Under the caselaw, whether the MCAD actually knew about the cancer-related claims is not determinative, as long as the claims come within the reasonable scope of the investigation of Perch’s CFS-related charge. It is not the scope of the actual investigation that determines what complaint may be filed, but what agency investigation could reasonably be expected to grow out of the original complaint. See Powe D.Mass.1998)
holding that a court ruling on a motion to dismiss may consider a document that is referenced in the complaint and is central to the plaintiffs claims holding that a court in deciding a rule 12b6 motion may consider a document that is incorporated by reference into the complaint holding that the court may consider an article not attached to the complaint in determining whether to dismiss the complaint because the article was integral to and explicitly relied on in the complaint and because the plaintiffs did not challenge its authenticity holding that in considering a rule 12b6 motion a court may only rely on the complaint its proper attachments documents incorporated into the complaint by reference and matters of which a court may take judicial notice holding that when the mcad charge is referenced in plaintiffs complaint and its content determines the parameters of her complaint this court may consider the mcad complaint in making its decision on this 12b6  motion without converting the matter into a summary judgment proceeding