tolling not to apply. In such a case, a plaintiff should not expect that the charge will necessarily be cross-filed within the limitations period. 10 . We note that once events are allowed under the continuing violation theory, “the Federal Rules of Evidence and the substantive law at issue, rather than the statutory filing period, should govern the evidentiary determinations of the trial court.” West v. Philadelphia Elec. Co., 45 F.3d 744, 755 (3d Cir.1995). 11 . We note that Title VII claims may not be brought against individual employees; under Title VII, Plaintiff can only state a claim against NHS and cannot state a claim (and does not appear to attempt to) against the individual defendants. See Sheridan v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co., 100 F.3d 1061, 1077 (3d Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, we need not engage in a similar
holding that individual defendants may not be held liable for violations under title vii holding that there is no individual liability under title vii holding that individual employees are not liable under title vii holding that a title vii plaintiff could not hold coworkers liable in their individual capacities under title vii holding that relief granted under title vii is against the employer not individual employees whose actions constituted a violation of title vii emphasis in original