to those aggrieved employees if we did not discuss it. We have held that an EEOC civil suit may allege any discrimination “stated in the charge itself or discovered in the course of a reasonable investigation of that charge, provided such additional discrimination was included in the EEOC ‘reasonable cause’ determination and was followed by compliance with the conciliation procedures I of the Act.” EEOC v. Hearst Corp., 553 F.2d 579, 580 (9th Cir.1976). Similarly, in EEOC v. Farmer Bros. Co., 31 F.3d 891, 899 (9th Cir.1994), we held that the EEOC could assert an employee’s discriminatory layoff claim as it was “like and reasonably related to” her charge which alleged discriminatory failure to recall and rehire. See also Vasquez v. Cty. of L.A., 349 F.3d 634, 644 (9th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). We “consider [a] plaintiffs civil claims to
holding individual employee may assert unexhausted retaliation claim if the later claim is reasonably related to the allegations in the employees timely filed charge holding sexual harassment claim was not like or related to retaliation allegations and therefore was outside the scope of the administrative charge recognizing that a claim is administratively exhausted if it is specifically stated in grows out of or is reasonably related to the substance of the allegations in an administrative charge or complaint holding that regarded as claim is reasonably related to claim of discrimination on the basis of disability alleged in eeoc charge holding that retaliation claim was reasonably related to prior sex discrimination claim