In Lindsey v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc., 1:23-cv-10166-ALC, 2025 WL 2781281 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2025), the court discussed and applied the “continuing violation” doctrine under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In sum, plaintiff alleges that she was subjected to a hostile work environment, commencing in 2007 with an alleged sexual assault, and extending through 2022.
From the decision:
Under Title VII, New York plaintiffs are required to file an administrative claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within 300 days of the discriminatory conduct. The 300-day period serves as a statute of limitations, and when the plaintiff fails to file a timely charge with the EEOC, a subsequent civil action is generally time-barred. The continuing violation doctrine may revive untimely claims so long as all acts which constitute the claim are part of the same unlawful employment practice and at least one act falls within the time period. However, the doctrine does not apply to discrete unlawful acts, even where those discrete acts are part of a serial violation.
Here, Defendant argues that sexual assault is a quintessential discrete act which renders the continuing violation doctrine inapplicable. Plaintiff counters that the doctrine applies because the Evans assault was part of an ongoing practice of harassment [which is] ‘by its very nature’ a ‘continuing violation. Plaintiff further contends that it is premature, at the motion to dismiss stage, to determine whether the continuing violation doctrine applies. The Court agrees.
Determining whether the continuing violation doctrine applies to certain allegations is a fact-intensive inquiry. Courts have declined to undertake this inquiry at the motion to dismiss stage. Here, Plaintiff alleges that she experienced pervasive gender discrimination and sexual assaults and harassment at Citi. These events spanned more than a decade, and do not only include the alleged Evans incident.
(Cleaned up.)
Accordingly, the court concluded that “[a]ssessing which incidents are sufficiently related to constitute a single, continuous conduct and which are not, is, indeed, fact-intensive and more appropriately resolved at a later stage in this litigation.”