holding that the plaintiff’s “failure to promote and train claim addresse[d] discrete instances of alleged discrimination that [we]re not susceptible to a continuing violation analysis”
How later courts described this case
- holding that the plaintiff’s “failure to promote and train claim addresse[d] discrete instances of alleged discrimination that [we]re not susceptible to a continuing violation analysis”
- holding that plaintiffs failure to promote claim and train claims are “discrete instances of alleged discrimination that are not susceptible to a continuing violation analysis.”
- observing that the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (“Third Circuit”) has “refus[ed] to adopt a per se rule that every hostile work environment claim constitutes a continuing violation.” (citing West, 45 F.3d at 755 )
- holding that a pattern of derogatory remarks, rude behavior, and other acts of sexual harassment constituted a continuing violation
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Abrogated on other grounds by Mandel v. M & Q Packaging Corp., 706 F.3d 157 (2013)
113 F.3d 476, 481 (3d Cir. 1997), abrogated on other grounds, Mandel v. M & Q Packaging Corp., 706 F.3d 157
The opinion
SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING
July 16, 1997
The petition for rehearing filed by the appellee, Christine Rush, in the above captioned matter having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this court and to all the other available circuit judges of the court in regular active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service not having voted for rehearing by the court en banc, the petition for rehearing is denied.