With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Citgo Petroleum Corp., 281 F.3d 1099, 1105 (10th Cir.2002); Jacques v. DiMarzio, Inc., 216 F.Supp.2d 139, 144 (E.D.N.Y.2002); Herzog, 999 F.Supp. at 275. 1. Whether Plaintiff Exhausted Her Administrative Remedies Concerning Her Hostile Work Environment Claim While Title VII allows for loose pleadings before the EEOC and a complainant need not list every detail of her alleged discriminatory treatment, a charge of discrimination needs to provide sufficient specifics to afford the EEOC a reasonable opportunity to fulfill its obligations to investigate the complaint and attempt to mediate a resolution. See Butts, 990 F.2d at 1402-03. The allegations in plaintiffs EEOC charge are “too vague to serve as predicates for [the] allegations [of a hostile work environment] in the complaint.” Id. (<HOLDING>); see also Alfano, 294 F.3d at 382; Crespo v.

A: holding that where the writings on file were insufficient to constitute an effective charge a charge had not been effectively filed despite the fact that the eeoc had assigned the case a charge number
B: 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
C: holding that statements in an eeoc charge that the plaintiff had consistently been the target of discriminatory practices and treatment and that she was denied promotional opportunities and consideration based on her race and sex were too vague
D: holding that a plaintiff could not show that she engaged in protected activity because she did not present evidence that she informed her employer that her complaints were based on race or age discrimination
C.