Under the continuing violation doctrine, “the existence of a continuous policy or practice delays the commencement of the statute of limitations until the last discriminatory act in furtherance of that policy or practice.” Salgado v. The City of New York, 2001 WL 290051 (S.D.N.Y.2001). See, Cornwell v. Robinson, 23 F.3d 694, 703–04 (2d Cir., 1994). Plaintiffs allege a pattern and practice of failing to promote them based on their race. Plaintiffs point to a specific mechanism or tool used in the promotional meetings that they allege demonstrates a pattern and practice of disparate treatment in promotional decisions. Plaintiffs also allege specific instances where they were passed over for promotions within the three year statute of limitations. See Harris v. City of New York, 186 F.3d at 250 (for the continuing violation doctrine to apply a claimant must allege both the existence of any ongoing policy of discrimination and some non-time-barred acts taken in furtherance of that policy). Therefore plaintiff’s claims occurring prior to September 10, 1998 that demonstrate a pattern and practice of disparate treatment in the promotion process cannot be dismissed as time-barred through this motion for summary judgment. The continuing violation doctrine may be applied to instances claimed to stem from UPS’s alleged racial discrimination in their promotion decisions.

Source: Hughes v. UPS, (2004 N.Y. Slip Op 510008 [NY Sup Ct 2004])