However, "the doctrine does not permit... the aggregation of discrete discriminatory acts for the purpose of reviving an untimely act of discrimination that the victim knew or should have known was actionable."

The doctrine provides that when an individual experiences a "continual, cumulative pattern of tortious conduct, the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the wrongful action ceases."

The continuing violation doctrine provides that "when the complained-of conduct constitutes `a series of separate acts that collectively constitute one unlawful employment practice [,]'the entire claim may be timely if filed within two years of `the date on which the last component act occurred.'"

To meet this prong, a plaintiff must show that a reasonable employee would have found the alleged employment action materially adverse, which means it " `well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.'"

However, " `[f] or causes of action arising under anti-discrimination laws,... a judicially created doctrine known as the continuing violation theory has developed as an equitable exception to the statute of limitations.'"

Moreover, because the court decided defendant's Rule 4: 6-2 (e) motion after it considered factual allegations made by the parties in certifications outside the pleadings, it was required to apply the standard governing summary judgment motions in Rule 4: 46-2 (c).

Hence, their treatment for timeliness purposes is straightforward: "A discrete retaliatory or discriminatory act occurs on the day that it happens."

A] discharge is a discrete discriminatory act that places an employee on notice of the existence of a cause of action and of the need to file a claim. The statute of limitations begins to run on the day that act takes place

The continuing violation doctrine does not apply to discrete employment acts, such as a termination, transfer, or denial of promotion—those decisions are not actionable if time-barred, even if they relate to acts in timely-filed claims.

The test for the application of the discovery rule is "whether the facts presented would alert a reasonable person, exercising ordinary diligence, that he or she was injured due to the fault of another."