discrete discriminatory act occurred in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(l). The United States Supreme Court further held that discrete acts such as “termination, failure to promote, denial of transfer, or refusal to hire” are considered separate incidents of discrimination not part of a series of violations. Morgan, 536 U.S. at 114, 122 S.Ct. 2061. See also Rojas v. Principi, 326 F.Supp.2d 267, 275-276 (D.P.R.2004) (defining discrete act as any event “which constitutes specific employment occurrences with the potential for concrete adverse consequences on the plaintiffs employment status”). As such, said actions constitute a separate actionable “unlawful employment practice.” Morgan, 536 U.S. at 114, 122 S.Ct. 2061. Thus, “each discrete discriminatory act star 84 (D.P.R.2002) (<HOLDING>); Rojas v. Principi, 326 F.Supp.2d at 275
holding that suspension with pay was not adverse employment action holding that fiveday suspension was not a de minimis deprivation holding that a suspension from employment and deprivation of duties and equipment constitute discrete acts holding that a transfer of job duties can constitute an adverse employment action holding that the court may only consider the discrete acts that occurred within the appropriate time period