most favorable to Cottrill and Combs, we will assume that Adkins was responsible for the sticky substance on the toilet seat and paper holder. MFA contends that the appellants failed to exhaust their administrative remedies because their EEOC complaints were based solely on the peeping and failed to mention the contamination and investigation allegations. We reject this argument because all three actions are sufficiently related to be part of the same claim for hostile work environment. The Supreme Court stated that a “hostile work environment claim is composed of a series of separate acts that collectively constitute one ‘unlawful employment practice.’ ” Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 117, 122 S.Ct. 2061, 153 L.Ed.2d 106 (2002) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1)) (<HOLDING>). The Court explained that “[hjostile
holding that conviction or acquittal of offense occurring within designated time period will bar subsequent prosecutions on same charge for acts occurring within designated time period holding that consideration of the entire scope of a hostile work environment claim including behavior alleged outside the statutory time period is permissible for the purposes of assessing liability so long as any act contributing to that hostile environment takes place within the statutory time period holding that the court may only consider the discrete acts that occurred within the appropriate time period holding that an individual could recover for acts occurring outside the statutory time period if at least one act occurred within the time period and the acts were part of the same hostile work environment holding that under title vii of the civil rights act of 1964 a charge alleging a hostile work environment will not be time barred if all acts constituting the claim are part of the same unlawful practice and at least one act falls within the filing period