Was it an error of law for the Appeals Court to misapply the Supreme Court's Morgan standard in evaluating the timeliness and sufficiency of a hostile work environment claim?

No question identified. : ii QQUUEESSTTIIOONNSS PPRREESSEENNTTEEDD I n assessing the timeliness of employment claims, the U.S. Supreme Court case of National Railroad Passenger Corp. (Amtrak) v. Morgan , 536 U.S. 101, 122 S. Ct. 2061, 153 L. Ed. 2d 106 (2002)(hereinafter “Morgan ”) distinguished between (i) “discrete acts” that are each independently actionable on their own and (ii) acts that are not independently actionable but that collectively comprise a single “unlawful employment practice.” Petitioner Amy Rae (hereinafter “Rae”) alleges a pattern of conduct that includes independently actionable “discrete acts” (e.g., denial of promotion) and many acts that in isolation are not independently actionable, including incidents of yelling and mocking. Was it an error of law for the Appeals Court to say that her retaliatory harassment claim was no more than an “attempt to amalgamate a series of discrete acts” into a single claim? Under Morgan , independently actionable discrete acts can be part of the basis for a hostile work environment claim as long as they are part of the same pattern as the acts that are not independently actionable. Rae’s retaliatory harassment claim is based on a pattern of conduct that includes both independently actionable acts (such as denial of promotion) and acts that are not independently actionable (such as insulting speech). Was it an error of law for the Appeals Court to say that Rae’s harassment claims were only an amalgamation of discrete acts “disguised” as a “single retaliatory harassment claim”? iii Mo rgan held that a hostile work environment claim will not be time -barred if (i) all acts that constitute the claim are part of the same unlawful employment practice and (ii) at least one of the acts falls within the statute of limitations period. Morgan explicitly rejected the view that, in addition to requirements (i) and (ii), the Rae must also show (iii) “it would have been unreasonable to expect the Rae to sue before the statute ran on such conduct.” Morgan , 536 U.S. at 11718. Here, all acts that constitute Rae’s retaliatory harassment claim (i) are part of the same unlawful employment practice and (ii) at least one of the acts falls within the statute of limitations period. Was it an error of law for theAppeals Court to hold that Rae’s claims were time barred because she perceived herself to be subject to unlawful harassment before the start of the statute of limitations period? Morgan held that each component act of a hostile work environment claim need not be “actionable on its own,” and that all the component acts must be considered together when evaluating the claim. Was it an error of law for the Appeals Court to dismiss Rae’s harassment claim on the ground that two of the component acts did not on their own constitute “objectively severe or pervasive harassment,” while affirmatively refusing to include in its analysis any of the many other component acts occurring over a period of years? Morgan requires courts to make an individualized assessment of whether separate incidents are sufficiently related to one another to constitute a single unlawful employment practice, considering the totality of the circumstances, and taking into account such factors as the time, location, iv perpetrator(s) involved, and any intervening events separating different acts. No single factor is determinative. Was it an error of law for the Appeals Court to hold that “a claimant must show at a bare minimum a series of discriminatory acts that emanate from the same discriminatory animus” to establish they are part of the same hostile work environment? Was it an error of law for the Appeals Court to hold that Rae had not proved all the component acts were sufficiently related because some of the alleged acts were harassment for advocating for students and others were retaliation for complaining about the harassment? v RREELLAATTEEDD PPRROOCC