August 17, 1992. (Proposed Pretrial Order, p. 6, ¶ 3). The court accepts this contention as true. Boeing argues that because plaintiff filed her administrative sex discrimination claim in August 1992, any allegedly discriminatoiy conduct, in order to be actionable, must have occurred within the 300-day period immediately preceding August 1992. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e). According 705 (10th Cir.1992) (“If the plaintiff establishes a pattern of continuing discrimination beginning before the [applicable statutory] period and extending into that period, the plaintiff may recover for those earlier acts.”). It does not make actionable an “isolated” or “unrelated” incident of discrimination that occurred outside that period. Allen v. Denver Public School Bd., 928 F.2d 978, 984 (10th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); Gray v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 858 F.2d 610,
holding that an individual could recover for acts occurring outside the statutory time period if at least one act occurred within the time period and the acts were part of the same hostile work environment holding that an action filed outside the statutory period of limitations should be dismissed and that mandamus was the proper remedy when the circuit court had denied the defendants motion to dismiss holding that consideration of the entire scope of a hostile work environment claim including behavior alleged outside the statutory time period is permissible for the purposes of assessing liability so long as any act contributing to that hostile environment takes place within the statutory time period holding that an untimely postjudgment motion does not toll the time for filing a notice of appeal and that this court has no jurisdiction over an untimely filed appeal holding that because nonpromotion claim involved an event unrelated to other alleged violations and occurred outside the statutory period it was prohibited as untimely