With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1)). As long as some act contributing to a hostile work environment occurred during the filing period, "the entire time period of the hostile environment may be considered by a court for the purposes of determining liability.” Id.; see also Marrero v. Goya of P.R., Inc., 304 F.3d 7, 18 (1st Cir.2002) (“The statute of limitations is satis fied as long as the plaintiff files a charge within 300 days of one of the many acts that, taken together, created tire hostile work environment.”). It appears that Puerto Rico courts would apply the federal rule and allow Plaintiff to recover damages for conduct occurring outside of the one-year statutory period. See Ortiz Roque v. Departamento de Justicia, Caso Núm. KPE2000-2061, 2006 WL 2385344, at *6 (P.R. Cir. June 23, 2006) (<HOLDING>). Nothing in this opinion and order shall

A: holding single incident of sexual harassment was neither sufficiently pervasive nor severe to constitute a hostile work environment
B: holding that the allegations of plaintiffs coemployees of sexual harassment by manager were irrelevant to plaintiffs hostile work environment claim absent evidence that plaintiff was contemporaneously aware of the alleged harassment
C: holding various incidents of sexual harassment contributing to hostile work environment form part of same cause of action
D: holding that a plaintiff alleging a hostile work environment claim under title vii may seek damages for all behavior contributing to a hostile work environment claim including behavior allegedly occurring outside the limitations period provided that an act contributing to the claim occurs within the filing period
C.