to the single incident occurring on April 13, 2000. In her appellate brief, she makes a variety of claims, referring to “several incidents of violent behavior” and alleging that the harassment continued for a period of two years. As a general rule, EEO regulations require an employee to report discriminatory incidents within forty-five days. 29 C.F.R. § 1614.105(a)(1); Henrickson v. Potter, 327 F.3d 444, 447 (5th Cir.2003) (affirming summary judgment in favor of Postal Ser.vice where plaintiff failed to contact an EEO counselor within forty-five days of the alleged discriminatory conduct). Merriman argued that her prior claims should be covered under the “continuing violation” exception to the forty-five-day limitation. Abrams v. Baylor College of Med., 805 F.2d 528, 532 (5th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). The district court correctly rejected this
recognizing an exception to the limitation period where the unlawful employment practice manifests itself over time rather than as a series of discrete acts holding that the court may only consider the discrete acts that occurred within the appropriate time period holding in the context of a title yii claim that discrete acts such as termination  or refusals to hire are separate retaliatory adverse employment decisions that each constitutes a separate actionable unlawful employment practice  holding that the limitation period for commencing a judicial action for unlawful discrimination in employment is the threeyear period of nycivpracl  r  2142 recognizing exception