involving “discrete acts” of alleged discrimination. Def.’s Opp. at 9-11. Plaintiff counters that Morgan is limited to employment discrimination cases. Pl.’s Reply at 8. In Morgan, the Supreme Court rejected the applicability of the continuing violation doctrine in cases involving discrete acts of discrimination in the context of addressing the timeliness of an employee’s claims under Title VII. 536 U.S. at 113, 122 S.Ct. 2061. The Supreme Court held that “discrete discriminatory acts are not action able if time barred, even when they are related to acts alleged in timely filed charges.” Id. It further explained that a discrete discriminatory act occurs “on the day it happened,” and gave as examples termination, failure to promote, denial of transfer, and refusal to hire. Id. .2003) (<HOLDING>); Becerra v. EarthLink, Inc., 421 F.Supp.2d
holding that denials of hearingimpaired employees multiple requests for accommodations under the rehabilitation act were each discrete acts of discrimination under morgan holding that the ada only applies to employees and that requests for accommodations must be made prior to termination holding that denial of request for accommodation of religion is a discrete act under morgan holding that denial of employees request for respirators under the rehabilitation act was a discrete act of discrimination under morgan holding rehabilitation act applicable