That is obviously misleading. The court in Butler directly cited 29 C.F.R. § 1601.12(b) and then specifically held that the regulation could not be called upon by the plaintiff therein to cure his lack of verification. Butler, 325 Fed. Appx. at 749.

12(b). The Supreme Court in Edelman v. Lynchburg College, 535 U.S. 106 (2002), upheld EEOC’s interpretation that 29 C.F.R. § 1601.12(b) which permits a charge to be verified after expiration of the applicable limitations period. Here, Plaintiff proceeded with her option to seek judicial review prior to verifying her charge with the EEOC.

Ms. Woodard’s 2006 amendment to her June 2005 EEOC Charge clarified, amplified and added additional facts that relate back to the facts of gender discrimination that were alleged in the original charge. See 29 C.F.R. § 1601.12(b). (Pl.

15(b); (4) If known, the approximate number of employees of the respondent employer or the approximate number of members of the respondent labor organization, as the case may be; and (5) A statement disclosing whether proceedings involving the alleged unlawful employment practice have been commenced before a State or local agency charged with the enforcement of fair employment practice laws and, if so, the date of such commencement and the name of the agency.” 29 C.F.R. § 1601.12(a). Recently, in Huri v. Office of the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County, 804 F.3d 826 (7th Cir. 2015), the Seventh Circuit stated: Courts review the scope of an EEOC charge liberally.

Although the questionnaire allegedly contained the parties’ names and addresses, the governing EEOC regulation also requires Plaintiff’s charge to provide: “A clear and concise statement of the facts, including pertinent dates, constituting the alleged unlawful employment practices.” 29 C.F.R. § 1601.12(a). Plaintiff’s questionnaire merely alleged “that Trumbull had engaged in unlawful sex discrimination and retaliation.”

12 only provides that “a charge may be amended to cure technical defects or omissions, including failure to verify the charge, or to clarify or amplify allegations made therein.” See 29 C.F.R. § 1601.12. Nowhere in this provision does it allow Plaintiff to amend his EEO charge to raise a wholly, new discrete claim of retaliation eleven months out of time.

EEOC regulations provide that charges should contain “[a] clear and concise statement of the facts, including pertinent dates, constituting the alleged unlawful employment practices.” 29 C.F.R. § 1601.12(a)(3). “Not all acts complained of, however, need have been included in the EEOC charge; rather, an employee may include in her lawsuit a claim for injury resulting from any practice which `was or should have been included in a reasonable investigation of the administrative complaint.'”

A charge must be “‘sufficiently precise to identify the parties, and to describe generally the action or practices complained of.’” Chacko, 429 at 508 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1601.12(b)). “Only those discrimination claims stated in the initial charge, those reasonably related to the original complaint, and those developed by reasonable investigation of the original complaint may be maintained in a subsequent Title VII lawsuit.”

“EEOC regulations provide that charges should contain, among other things, ‘[a] clear and concise statement of the facts, including pertinent dates, constituting the alleged unlawful employment practices.’” Alexander, 207 F.3d at1332 (11th Cir. 2000) citing 29 C.F.R. §1601.12(a)(3). The EEOC charge and investigation is “[t]he starting point of ascertaining the permissible scope of a [subsequent] judicial compliant...”

PageID #: 47 -6- Under EEOC regulations, a charge is sufficient when it is “sufficiently precise to identify the parties, and to describe generally the action or practices complained of,” and a charge “may be amended to cure technical defects or omissions, including failure to verify the charge, or to clarify and amplify allegations made therein.” 29 C.F.R. § 1601.12(b); see also Edelman v. Lynchburg College, 535 U.S. 106 (2002). In Federal Express Corp. v. Holowecki, 552 U.S. 389 (2008), the Supreme Court considered whether an intake questionnaire could satisfy the charge- filing requirement under the ADEA for purposes of determining timeliness.