With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". discrimination claims occurred well over two years before Smith commenced this litigation. Thus, they are barred by NJLAD and § 1983’s statutes of limitations. Smith’s claims cannot be saved under the continuing violation theory, because an employer’s failure to promote is quintessentially a dis Crete employment action. See AMTRAK v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 115, 122 S.Ct. 2061, 153 L.Ed.2d 106 (U.S.2002)(“Each discrete discriminatory act starts a new clock for filing charges alleging that act. Discrete acts such as ... failure to promote ... are easy to identify. Each incident of discrimination and each retaliatory adverse employment decision constitutes a separate actionable ‘unlawful employment practice.’ ”); see also Rush v. Scott Specialty Gases, 113 F.3d 476, 484 (3d Cir.1997)(<HOLDING>). Likewise, discriminatory discipline actions

A: holding that repeated failure to promote where promotion is not based on specific vacancies may constitute a continuing violation
B: holding that plaintiffs failure to promote claim and train claims are discrete instances of alleged discrimination that are not susceptible to a continuing violation analysis
C: holding failure to promote was an isolated incident of discrimination which is insufficient to prove a continuing violation
D: holding that the continuing violation doctrine does not apply to discrete acts of discrimination such as termination failure to promote denial of transfer or refusal to hire
B.