With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". him, even though Smith was investigated in 1990, based upon rumors that she was leaving her shift early. Lastly, Smith claims that she was discriminated against when charges were brought against her in 2003, alleging that she falsified a report when, on October 18, 2001, Goess had also changed a report. She does not, however, claim that anyone was aware of the fact that Goess made such changes until he admitted to doing so in his deposition on March 16, 2007. The majority of discrete employment actions. See O’Connor v. City of Newark, 440 F.3d 125 (3d Cir.2006)(following Morgan and enumerating discrete acts that are not susceptible to the continuing violations doctrine, including “wrongful discipline”); see also Gadson v. City of Wilmington Fire Dep’t, 478 F.Supp.2d 635 (D.Del.2007)(<HOLDING>). Thus, the Court will dismiss all of Smith’s

A: recognizing cause of action under section 504 based on claims of disparate impact
B: holding that there is no disparate impact claim under the adea
C: holding that plaintiffs claims of disparate treatment in defendants imposition of discipline as well as hiring and promotional policies and practices which have a disparate impact upon defendants black and hispanic employees are discrete acts that cannot be aggregated under a continuing violations theory
D: holding that disparate impact claims are not cognizable under the adea
C.