Absent Evidence of “Practice or Policy” of Discrimination, Court Declines to Apply “Disfavored” Continuing Violations Doctirine “Continuing Violation” Doctrine Held Inapplicable

In Pothen v. StonyBrook University, 2018 WL 3954148 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2018), the court adopted a Report and Recommendation (R&R) that plaintiff’s discrimination and retaliation claims be dismissed. In doing so, the court discussed the so-called “continuing violation” doctrine.

From the decision:

the Court agrees with the R&R’s conclusion that plaintiff’s claims based on separate, discrete acts of discrimination and retaliation that allegedly occurred prior to February 11, 2012 were time-barred. (R&R at 15.) The R&R discusses the “continuing violation” doctrine (even though plaintiff did not argue that this doctrine should apply), under which the limitations period could be extended for certain claims. (Id. at 13.) The R&R explains that the doctrine is “heavily disfavored” in this circuit “absent a showing of compelling circumstances” (id. at 14 (quoting Kubicek v. Westchester County, No. 08-CV-372 (KMK), 2009 WL 3702155, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 8, 2009) ) ), and recommends that the Court decline to apply this doctrine to extend the limitations period for these claims (id. at 15). In support of this recommendation, the R&R states that plaintiff “failed to submit any evidence from which the Court c[ould] infer that a practice or policy of discrimination occurred that would warrant applying the continuing violation doctrine.” (Id.) Among the claims that the R&R concludes are time-barred are those based on allegations that plaintiff was interviewed but not hired for a position that would have constituted a promotion. (Id.) After conducting a de novo review, the Court concludes that this analysis is correct.

Share This: