on that ground. Finally, defendant argues weakly in one of its footnotes that consideration of plaintiffs allegations arising from conduct that occurred during elementary and middle school is barred under the one-year limitations provision set forth under the MHRA. See Minn.Stat. § 363.03, subd. 3. Nevertheless, Minnesota courts recognize that the “continuing violation” doctrine applies to claims under the MHRA. See Sigurdson v. Isanti County, 448 N.W.2d 62, 68 (Minn.1989); Breitenfeldt v. Long Prairie Packing Co., 48 F.Supp.2d 1170, 1175 (D.Minn.1999). Under this doctrine, a claimant may bring charges based on acts occurring outside the statute of limitations period if the conduct is related to acts occurring within the limitations period. See Breitenfeldt, 48 F.Supp.2d at 1175 (<HOLDING>). In the case at bar, plaintiff filed his
holding in the discrimination context that a plaintiff may challenge incidents which occurred outside the statute of limitations period if the various acts of discrimination constitute a continuing pattern of discrimination holding official immunity is available in claims of discrimination if plaintiff fails to establish his treatment by defendants was so at variance with what would reasonably be anticipated absent racial discrimination that racial discrimination is the probable explanation holding that in a discrimination case plaintiff must prove that firing was a result of intentional discrimination holding that allegations of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation necessarily state a claim of discrimination on the basis of sex holding discrimination based on pregnancy was not sex discrimination