First, a claimant must exhaust administrative remedies by filing a charge with the EEOC or an equivalent state agency, like the DFEH, and receiving a right-to-sue letter. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1) ; Jasch v. Potter , 302 F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir. 2002). The charge must be filed within 180 days after the allegedly unlawful employment practice occurred.

Defendant argues that Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed because he did not exhaust his administrative remedies. The Rehabilitation Act, Title VII and Title I of the ADA all require an individual to exhaust administrative remedies before filing a civil action in district court. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a); Bullock v. Berrien, 688 F.3d 613, 616 (9th Cir. 2012); Jasch v. Potter, 302 F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir. 2002); Zimmerman v. Or. DOJ, 170 F.3d 1169, 1178 (9th Cir. 1999).

To establish federal subject matter jurisdiction over causes of action brought under Title VII and the ADA, a plaintiff must "exhaust her EEOC administrative remedies before seeking federal adjudication of her claims." EEOC v. Farmer Bros. Co., 31 F.3d 891, 899 (9th Cir. 1004); see also Josephs v. Pac. Bell, 443 F.3d 1050, 1062 (9th Cir. 2006); Jasch v. Potter, 302 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2002).

The requirement is meant "'to give the agency the opportunity to right any wrong it may have committed.'" Jasch v. Potter, 302 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting McRae v. Librarian of Congress, 843 F.2d 1494, 1496 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (per curiam)). "If the agency has had this opportunity and has made a determination concerning discrimination, the administrative process has not been obstructed.

Unlike the private sector, "[e]xhaustion [in an action against a federal agency] requires that a plaintiff comply with regulatory and judicially-imposed exhaustion requirements, including the requirement to pursue the administrative claim 'with diligence and in good faith.'" Jasch v. Potter, 302 F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir. 2002). In fact, a "complainant's failure to cooperate in the administrative process precludes exhaustion when it prevents the agency from making a determination on the merits."

While private sector Title VII cases do not require a claimant to cooperate in the administrative process, the same is not true in cases involving federal employees. See Jasch v. Potter, 302 F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir. 2002) ("Exhaustion [in an action against a federal agency] requires that a plaintiff comply with regulatory and judicially-imposed exhaustion requirements, including the requirement to pursue the administrative claim with diligence and in good faith.") (citation and internal quotations omitted); Oberweis Dairy, 456 F.3d at 709-12 (Title VII "does not impose a duty of cooperation" in private sector cases, "[b]ut the statutory framework is different" for federal employees.); but see Shikles v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 426 F.3d 1304 (10th Cir. 2005) (The court held that a private sector employee was required to cooperate with the EEOC in order to exhaust his administrative remedies.).

. The requirement is meant “‘to give the agency the opportunity to right any wrong it may have committed.'” Jaschv. Potter, 302 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting McRae v. Librarian of Congress, 843 F.2d 1494, 1496 (D.C.Cir. 1988) (per curiam)). “If the agency has had this opportunity and has made a determination concerning discrimination, the administrative process has not been obstructed.

Courts generally defer to the agency's findings in this regard. Thus, “if an agency reaches the merits of a claim, despite a claimant's failure to comply with requests for information, administrative remedies should be presumed sufficiently exhausted to permit suit in federal court.” Jasch v. Potter, 302 F.3d 1092, 1095-96 (9th Cir. 2002); see also id. at 1094 (collecting cases); Wilson v. Pena, 79 F.3d 154, 164-65 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (complainant who fails to provide sufficient information has nevertheless exhausted remedies if the agency takes final action on the merits).

The exhaustion requirement exists to minimize “judicial interference with the operation of the federal government.” Doe v. Oberweis Dairy, 456 F.3d 704, 712 (7th Cir. 2006). The requirement is meant “‘to give the agency the opportunity to right any wrong it may have committed.'” Jasch v. Potter, 302 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting McRae v. Librarian of Congress, 843 F.2d 1494, 1496 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (per curiam)). “If the agency has had this opportunity and has made a determination concerning discrimination, the administrative process has not been obstructed. It has been exhausted.”

Before filing suit on a statutory employment discrimination claim, the employee must exhaust her administrative remedies by filing a timely and sufficient charge with the appropriate administrative agency and obtaining a right-to-sue letter from the agency. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f); Jasch v. Potter, 302 F.3d 1092, 1094 (9th Cir. 2002). The EEOC is ordinarily the appropriate agency for a Title VII claim. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5.