context: Because those claims and the facts supporting them exceed the scope of the allegations Tunnicliff filed with the MCAD and EEOC, he has failed to exhaust his administrative remedy with respect thereto.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 99 F.3d 464, 464
citation_a.parenthetical: finding that, in order to meet the procedural requirement of exhausting administrative remedies, "[e]ven a pro se complainant is required to describe the essential nature of the claim and to identify the core facts on which it rests"
citation_a.sentence: See Johnson v. General Electric, 840 F.2d 132, 139 (1st Cir.1988) (dismissing retaliatory discharge claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedy); see also Lattimore, 99 F.3d at 464 (finding that, in order to meet the procedural requirement of exhausting administrative remedies, “[e]ven a pro se complainant is required to describe the essential nature of the claim and to identify the core facts on which it rests”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 840 F.2d 132, 139
citation_b.parenthetical: dismissing retaliatory discharge claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedy
citation_b.sentence: See Johnson v. General Electric, 840 F.2d 132, 139 (1st Cir.1988) (dismissing retaliatory discharge claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedy); see also Lattimore, 99 F.3d at 464 (finding that, in order to meet the procedural requirement of exhausting administrative remedies, “[e]ven a pro se complainant is required to describe the essential nature of the claim and to identify the core facts on which it rests”).