to support Plaintiffs timely claims. Morgan, 536 U.S. at 113, 122 S.Ct. 2061. Moreover, Plaintiff may sue directly under § 1983 for alleged discriminatory acts that occurred less than two years before she filed her complaint. See Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 974 (9th Cir.2004); Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 12-542 (establishing two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims in Arizona). 2. The district court erred when it granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Count I, Plaintiffs claim for gender discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), except to the extent that the court entered summary judgment for Defendants Benbow and Alexander in their individual capacities. See Holly D. v. Cal. Inst. of Tech., 339 F.3d 1158, 1179 (9th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). Plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to
holding individual employees may be liable under title vii recognizing title vii does not provide the exclusive remedy for all employment discrimination claims even if the title vii and section 1983 claim factually overlap holding that relief granted under title vii is against the employer not individual employees whose actions constituted a violation of title vii emphasis in original holding that individual employees are not liable under title vii holding that title vii does not provide for a damages claim against supervisors or fellow employees