her 2011 EEOC charge of age and race discrimination, it does not grow out of the subject matter of the original charge.”); Marshall v. Honeywell Tech. Solutions, Inc., 536 F.Supp.2d 59, 67 (D.D.C.2008) (“[W]here administrative complaints for discrimination based on sex, race and retaliation do not mention critical facts relevant to an age discrimination claim, the later filed age claims do not relate back.”); Thrash v. Library of Cong., No. 04-0634, 2006 WL 463251, at *6 (D.D.C. Feb. 24, 2006) (”[T]he court determines that the defendant did not have notice of the plaintiff s' charges of age discrimination for a refusal to transfer the plaintiff based on her administrative charges of race and gender discrimination.”); Wilson v. Commc’ns Workers of Am., 767 F.Supp. 304, 306 (D.D.C.1991) (<HOLDING>). For Title VII claims, the failure to properly
holding that because the amendment added a new substantive theory which is fundamentally distinct from the original race discrimination charge it did not relate to or grow out of the plaintiffs original eeoc charge holding that where the writings on file were insufficient to constitute an effective charge a charge had not been effectively filed despite the fact that the eeoc had assigned the case a charge number 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 claimant exhausted administrative remedies only as to the complaints made in the original charge and factually related claims that reasonably could be expected to grow out of the administrative investigation of that charge holding eeoc could maintain an action alleging discrimination against women and minority groups although the original charge alleged only discrimination against males