Opinion ID: 2570739
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sick leave and salary level

Text: The superior court dismissed Sengupta's § 1983 claims challenging the denial of sick leave and alleged salary disparity as barred under AS 09.10.070. Sengupta challenges this decision under a continuing violation theory. Under this theory, certain patterns of discriminatory acts against the same employee can preserve a claim as timely that might otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations. [18] To benefit from the continuing violation theory, a plaintiff must first demonstrate that some discriminatory act occurred within the limitations period. The plaintiff must then show that the timely filed claim  based upon this act within the limitation period  is closely related to the otherwise time-barred claims. [19] Thus, Sengupta must demonstrate that the sick leave and salary claims are so related to the timely filed termination claim that they constitute a continuing violation. To determine whether the claims are sufficiently related, federal circuit courts have often looked at three primary characteristics of the violations: subject matter, temporal proximity, and permanence. [20] Many courts have designated the permanence factor as the most important. [21] The permanent violation triggers a reasonable person's awareness of the alleged discrimination and the need to assert her rights. [22] On a subjective basis, if a plaintiff's actions show that she knew her rights had been violated by a certain point in time, the limitations period starts running from that date. [23] The continuing violation doctrine does not exist to give a second chance to an employee who allowed a legitimate [discrimination] claim to lapse. [24] Here Sengupta has long felt that he has suffered discrimination  certainly before January 17, 1995, the date two years before the filing of the complaint. With respect to the alleged salary disparity, Sengupta raised the discrimination issue in the grievance proceedings leading to the June 24, 1994 Parrish decision. Because Sengupta was aware of the alleged discrimination and the need to assert his rights, his claim regarding salary disparity is barred by the statute of limitation. For the same reasons, Sengupta's claim regarding the November 4, 1994 denial of sick leave is also barred. Thus, because Sengupta perceived the alleged discrimination outside of the two-year limitations period, the superior court properly concluded that AS 09.10.070 bars his salary and sick leave claims.