May 1998. This claim is time-barred under both the ADA and FEHA because Shea did not file either an administrative charge with the EEOC within 300 days of this allegedly unlawful conduct or a complaint with the DFEH within a year of this conduct. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 12117(a), 2000e-5(e)(l) (stating that under the ADA, an aggrieved party must file a complaint within either 180 or 300 days after an alleged unlawful employment practice has occurred); Cal. Gov’t Code § 12960 (stating that under the FEHA, a complainant must file an administrative charge within one year after the alleged unlawful practice occurred). Shea’s ADA and FEHA claims are not saved by the continuing violations doctrine. See Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 122 S.Ct. 2061, 2068, 153 L.Ed.2d 106 (2002) (<HOLDING>); see also Richards v. CH2M Hill, Inc., 26
holding that retaliation claims are not cognizable under 42 usc  1981 holding that 42 usc  2000e5el precludes recovery for discrete acts of discrimination or retaliation that occur outside the statutory time period holding that the limitations period for a title vii claim for pay discrimination begins with the first discrete act holding that the court may only consider the discrete acts that occurred within the appropriate time period holding that an individual could recover for acts occurring outside the statutory time period if at least one act occurred within the time period and the acts were part of the same hostile work environment