§ 12182(a) and 29 U.S.C. § 794(a)) is applicable to those, like defendant, who receive federal financial assistance, even absent a formal application from a handicapped person. This general prohibition is reflected in 45 C.F.R. § 84.4, which states: “No qualified handicapped person shall, on the basis of handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity which receives Federal financial assistance.” Thus, plaintiffs contention that it was legally impossible for his cause of action to accrue based on defendant’s pre-1999 actions is erroneous. 2. Continuing Violations and Discrete Acts Plaintiff next urges that, even assuming a violation occurred before July 9, 1999, he d 130 (2d Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). In short, there is no principled basis for
holding failure to immediately approve request for accommodation even for employee with known disability did not constitute denial of reasonable accommodation where employer was working on solution over several months holding that denial of request for accommodation of religion is a discrete act under morgan holding that denials of hearingimpaired employees multiple requests for accommodations under the rehabilitation act were each discrete acts of discrimination under morgan holding that denial of employees request for respirators under the rehabilitation act was a discrete act of discrimination under morgan holding that the protection of the double jeopardy clause does not preclude a defendant from being charged under a statute  defining as the criminal offense a discrete act after a prior conviction or acquittal of a distinguishable discrete act that is a separate violation of the statute