Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): factual inferences in favor of the party against whom summary judgment is sought.” Tenry v. Ashcroft, 336 F.3d 128, 137 (2d Cir.2003) (internal quotations omitted). Moncriefs argument concerning the timeliness of her failure to promote claim is unavailing. To state a timely Title VII claim, a plaintiff must file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within 300 days of the allegedly discriminatory employment practice. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(l). The most recent date upon which Moncrief was denied a promotion was April 2002, and she filed her EEOC charge in May 2004, more than two years later. Therefore, this claim was time-barred, and the district court correctly dismissed it. See Alleyne v. American Airlines, Inc., 548 F.3d 219, 220 (2d Cir.2008)(per curiam) (<HOLDING>). As to Moncriefs wrongful termination claim, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a party must file an eeoc charge within 180 days from the date the unlawful act occurred or lose the ability to recover for it (B) holding that the timely filing of an eeoc charge pursuant to  706 of title vii 42 usc  2000e5 did not toll the statute of limitations for an action brought on the same facts under 42 usc  1981 (C) holding that the conduct complained of must be an unlawful employment practice under title vii (D) recognizing that under 42 usc  2000e5el a title vii claim is timely where the eeoc charge was filed within 300 days of the alleged unlawful employment practice (E) holding that statute of limitations barred title vii claim where the plaintiff would have been aware of discrimination more than 300 days before eeoc charge filed
Output (English): holding that the timely filing of an eeoc charge pursuant to  706 of title vii 42 usc  2000e5 did not toll the statute of limitations for an action brought on the same facts under 42 usc  1981