With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". claim is not reasonably expected to grow out of her actual disability claim. The key question presented by the exhaustion argument is whether Vasquez’s claim that she was “regarded as” disabled falls within the scope of her existing discrimination charge. This, in turn, depends on whether her allegations could have been “reasonably expected to grow out of [the] EEOC charge.” Dyer v. Wiregrass Hospice, L.L.C., 532 F.Supp.2d 933, 935 (M.D.Tenn.2008), citing Smith v. Ky. State Univ., 97 Fed.Appx. 22, 26 (6th Cir.2004); Ang v. Procter & Gamble Co., 932 F.2d 540, 545 (6th Cir.1991). Vasquez’s charge stated that “I was discriminated against because of my ... disability in the manner described above in violation of... Title I of the Americans with Disabilities A d 758, 786 (N.D.Ill.2007)(<HOLDING>); Larimer v. Int’l Bus. Machines, Corp., No. 02

A: holding that retaliation claim was reasonably related to prior sex discrimination claim
B: holding that allegations of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation necessarily state a claim of discrimination on the basis of sex
C: holding that regarded as claim was reasonably related to claim of discrimination on the basis of disability
D: holding disability discrimination claim barred
C.