and to request additional sick time, which the Police Department also refused. On June 2, 1998, Perch filed a charge with the MCAD for gender and disability discrimination. She alleged in her charge that Quincy refused to provide additional sick time and grant shift changes to accommodate her CFS-related difficulties, though it extended sick time and granted shift changes for male officers with serious medical problems. In October 1999, Perch was diagnosed with cervical cancer and scheduled to undergo surgery. Perch requested additional sick time under a “cancer clause” in the Police Department’s Collective Bargaining Agreement, which grants an extra six months of sick time to officers who are diagnosed with cancer. This request was denied. Several officers volunteered to donate 1998) (<HOLDING>). Quincy argues that Perch did not meet the
holding when an employee was temporarily replaced by a person who was 10 years younger and permanently replaced by a person four years younger this was sufficient for the prima facie case holding that adea plaintiff had failed to make a prima facie case of age discrimination when he was replaced by someone only two years younger and within the protected age group and there was no other evidence of age discriminatory motive holding that the plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies with respect to gender discrimination and retaliation claims where she had only asserted discrimination based on race and disability in her eeoc complaint holding that the fourth prong of a prima facie age discrimination case was satisfied where plaintiff was replaced by two individuals  one who was four years younger than plaintiff and the other who was ten years younger holding that plaintiff whose administrative charge alleged only that he was falsely accused of being rude to customers and was replaced by a younger worker could not sue for discrimination based on religion and disability