(W.D.Pa.1998) (rejecting continuing violation theory because demotion was a discrete incident); Narin v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 24 F.Supp.2d 465, 473 (E.D.Pa.1998) (stating that defendant’s refusal to hire on ten different occasions was not a continuing violation because each act was a “separate and distinct employment decision” and should have triggered plaintiffs awareness); Miller v. Cohen, 52 F.Supp.2d 389, 400 (M.D.Pa.1998) (finding failure to promote sufficiently permanent to trigger plaintiffs awareness of her rights); Hopson v. Dollar Bank, 994 F.Supp. 332, 337 (W.D.Pa.1997) (continuing violation theory inapplicable where failure to promote was permanent and discriminatory acts were infrequent). But see Miller v. Beneficial Management Corp., 977 F.2d 834, 844 (3d Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). i. Failure to promote It is clear to this
holding that the plaintiff was precluded from asserting her failure to promote claim as a continuing violation holding failure to promote was an isolated incident of discrimination which is insufficient to prove a continuing violation holding that plaintiffs failure to promote claim and train claims are discrete instances of alleged discrimination that are not susceptible to a continuing violation analysis holding that repeated failure to promote where promotion is not based on specific vacancies may constitute a continuing violation 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