filed charges.” 536 U.S. 101, 113, 122 S.Ct. 2061, 153 L.Ed.2d 106 (2002). In considering whether plaintiffs may apply the continuing violations doctrine to discrete acts occurring pursuant to a policy of discrimination, the Second Circuit subsequently held that “[discrete acts ..., which fall outside the limitations period, cannot be brought within it, even when undertaken pursuant to a general policy that results in other discrete acts occurring within the limitations period.” Chin v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 685 F.3d 135, 157 (2d Cir.2012). Plaintiffs allegations of overtime violations occurring between November 2004 and August 2006 constitute discrete- acts. See, e.g., Consoli v. St. Mary Home/Mercy Cmty. Health, No. 13 Civ. 1791, 2014 WL 3849978, at *4 (D.Conn. Aug. 5, 2014) (<HOLDING>); Anderson v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Corr., No. 12
holding that the court may only consider the discrete acts that occurred within the appropriate time period holding that plaintiffs allegations related to denial of overtime were discrete acts timebarred and not individually actionable holding that the continuing violation doctrine does not apply to discrete acts of discrimination such as termination failure to promote denial of transfer or refusal to hire holding that allegations that plaintiffs supervisor brushed up against her on some occasions  were not actionable holding that a suspension from employment and deprivation of duties and equipment constitute discrete acts