limited exception to the running of the statute of limitations, which posits that “where there is an ongoing, continuous series of discriminatory acts, they may be challenged in their entirety as long as one of those discriminatory acts falls within the limitations period.” Haithcock, 958 F.2d at 677-78. Continuing violations can take the form of either a longstanding policy of discrimination or evidence of present discriminatory actions taking place within the limitation period. Dixon v. Anderson, 928 F.2d 212, 216 (6th Cir.1991). In the failure to hire context, most continuing violations take the form of a longstanding discriminatory policy, which prevents gainful employment of a class of individuals. See, e.g., Roberts v. North Am. Rockwell Corp., 650 F.2d 823, 827 (6th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). In the instant case, Young has not presented
holding that the employee was acting within the course of her employment when she died while returning from the workrelated session because her death occurred on a public highway which was brought within the scope of her employment by her employers requirement that she attend training at the state police academy holding that the plaintiff was precluded from asserting her failure to promote claim as a continuing violation holding that a plaintiff could not show that she engaged in protected activity because she did not present evidence that she informed her employer that her complaints were based on race or age discrimination holding that the plaintiff had failed to prove the defendants reasons for not hiring the plaintiff were pretext because the plaintiff failed to submit any evidence other than her own subjective testimony that she was more qualified for the job than the selectee holding that an established policy of not hiring women prevented plaintiff from gaining employment on the many occasions that she applied and therefore amounted to a continuing violation of her rights