Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. at 115, 122 S.Ct. 2061 (internal citations and quotations omitted). An “unlawful employment practice” that constitutes a hostile work environment thus cannot be said to occur on any particular day, but rather occurs over a series of days or years. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. at 115, 122 S.Ct. 2061 (citing Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17, 21, 114 S.Ct. 367, 126 L.Ed.2d 295 (1993)). Accordingly, so long as one of the incidents included within the claim of hostile environment occurred within the prescribed time limit, other conduct that occurred outside of the proscribed time period, but contributing to the hostile work environment, is not time barred. See Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. at 105, 122 S.Ct. 2061 (<HOLDING>); West v. Norton, 376 F.Supp.2d at 1129. In
holding that a plaintiff alleging a hostile work environment claim under title vii may seek damages for all behavior contributing to a hostile work environment claim including behavior allegedly occurring outside the limitations period provided that an act contributing to the claim occurs within the filing period holding that consideration of the entire scope of a hostile work environment claim including behavior alleged outside the statutory time period is permissible for the purposes of assessing liability so long as any act contributing to that hostile environment takes place within the statutory time period holding that a viable hostile work environment claim requires an environment that a reasonable person would find hostile or abusive 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 recognizing a hostile work environment claim under section 1983