stage of the litigation. B. Sex discrimination Boeing seeks dismissal of plaintiffs Title VII sex discrimination claim predicated on the allegation that Boeing delayed plaintiffs promotion from a General Office (“GO”) hourly employee to a Professional & Administrative (“P & A”) salaried employee because of plaintiffs sex. Plaintiff admits that she was promoted to the P & A position effective July of 1990. Plaintiff contends that she filed a complaint alleging race and sex discrimination, as well as retaliation, with the Kansas Commission on Human Rights and with the EEOC 14 (10th Cir.1988); E.E.O.C. v. Penton Indus. Publishing Co., 851 F.2d 835, 838 (6th Cir.1988); see also Mathes v. Rice, No. CIV. A. 91-6297, 1992 WL 181979, at *3 (10th Cir. July 29, 1992) (unpublished disposition) (<HOLDING>). Boeing’s position is correct. Although
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 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 holding that repeated failure to promote where promotion is not based on specific vacancies may constitute a continuing violation