With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". not contest his discrimination claims on summary judgment contained in Counts I and III in his Complaint. The Court grants summary judgment accordingly. 7 . Defendants claim that Tawwaab’s Title VII retaliation claim must be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies because he did not check the "retaliation” box on his E.E.O.C. Charge, and did not allege a claim of retaliation in the body of the Charge. (See Doc. No. 52-2, Ex. A-1 at 1.) However, the E.E.O.C. explicitly included retaliation in its reasonable cause determination. (See Doc. No. 63, Ex. 11 at 1.) As such, to the extent Defendant argues that Tawwaab’s retaliation claim is beyond the scope of his E.E.O.C. Charge, the Court does not agree. See E.E.O.C. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 532 F.2d 359, 364-66 (4th Cir.1976) (<HOLDING>). 8 .The analysis is the same for retaliation

A: holding that in light of a worksharing agreement between the state agency and the eeoc a charge of discrimination filed with the state agency was properly filed with the eeoc on the same date
B: holding that plaintiff stated a discrimination claim despite not including a discrimination heading in eeoc complaint because the facts included in eeoc complaint were sufficient to trigger an investigation into whether plaintiff suffered an adverse action because of his religion
C: 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
D: holding that failure of eeoc to transmit charge to phrc within limitations period was subject to equitable tolling where plaintiff requested crossfiling in the cover letter attached to the eeoc charge on the first page of the charge itself and on an official form used by the eeoc for requests for dualfiling
C.