in this regard, and it is certainly understandable that an employee, relying solely on the Zero-Tolerance Policy, might believe that she had preserved her rights so long as she notified her supervisor or manager about the harassment. However, the Zero-Tolerance Policy was not the sole information available to Johnson. On the page of the Workbook immediately preceding the Policy, there is a chart detailing the time limits for the various steps to be taken in filing an EEO complaint. Moreover, as the magistrate judge pointed out, there is no basis in law to suggest that an employee’s complaints to her supervisors satisfy the requirement that the aggrieved employee seek EEO counseling prior to filing a formal complaint or suing in court. Slip op. at 6-7. Cf. Leorna, 105 F.3d at 551 & n. 3 (<HOLDING>). Johnson also argues on appeal, as she did
holding there is no statutory requirement that a taxpayer exhaust administrative remedies before filing a complaint in the tax court holding that the plaintiffs waived any right to seek remand by filing a second amended complaint in federal court holding that filing of an administrative complaint did not meet the requirement that the employee seek counseling prior to filing holding that filing of a verified complaint was similar to a policeman filing an arrest warrant and did not initiate judicial process holding that administrative remedies must be exhausted prior to filing a claim in court