job assignments are considered discrete acts. Coudert v. Janney Montgomery Scott, LLC, 2005 WL 1563325 (D.Conn.2005). Such is the case because these types of adverse employment actions are easy to identify and “each incident of discrimination and each retaliatory adverse employment decision constitutes a separate actionable ‘unlawful employment practice.’ ” Morgan, 536 U.S. at 114, 122 S.Ct. 2061. These discrete acts cannot be transformed into “a single unlawful practice for the purposes of timely filing.” Id., at 111, 122 S.Ct. 2061. Thus, “[m]ere continuity of employment, without more, is insufficient to prolong the life of a cause of action for employment discrimination.” Id. at 113, 122 S.Ct. 2061; See, e.g., Lloyd v. Bear Stearns & Co. Inc., 2004 WL 2848536 (S.D.N.Y.2004) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, insofar as these incidents
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 holding failure to promote was an isolated incident of discrimination which is insufficient to prove a continuing violation holding that the plaintiff was precluded from asserting her failure to promote claim as a continuing violation holding that repeated failure to promote where promotion is not based on specific vacancies may constitute a continuing violation holding that the continuing violation doctrine does not apply to discrete acts of discrimination such as termination failure to promote denial of transfer or refusal to hire