With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". after, if not as a result of, an employee’s invocation of the EEOC process.” Munoz Rivera v. Walgreens Co., 428 F.Supp.2d 11, 22 (D.P.R.2006) (quoting Kenney v. MML Investors Servs., 266 F.Supp.2d 239, 245-46 (D.Mass.2003)) (internal quotation marks omitted). “The rule does not, however, provide a plaintiff with an unlimited license to extend his [or her] claim endlessly beyond the bounds and parameters encompassed by the admi L 2422330 at *2 (N.D.Tex. Aug. 05, 2009) (finding that although administrative remedies need not be exhausted prior to filing a retaliation claim growing out of a previously filed EEOC charge, “exhaustion is required where the alleged retaliatory acts occurred before filing the charge.”); Houston v. Army Fleet Servs., LLC, 509 F.Supp.2d 1033, 1044 (M.D.Ala.2007) (<HOLDING>); Wilson v. Palmer House Hilton, 2005 WL

A: holding that a plaintiff need not exhaust his administrative remedies to bring a retaliation claim
B: holding that a plaintiff who has filed a charge with the eeoc is foreclosed from pursuing a state civil action under  411202 because filing a charge with the eeoc is equivalent to the election of an administrative remedy under  411205
C: holding plaintiff did not exhaust his retaliation claim where his eeoc charge made no mention of retaliation
D: holding that if the alleged retaliatory action occurs before the initial eeoc charge is filed a plaintiff must exhaust his administrative remedies as to that claim by including factual information in the charge that discloses the factual basis for the retaliation claim
D.