5.[FN14]
[*10]
On the contrary, the Restoration Act's uniquely remedial provisions{**61 AD3d at 73} are consistent with a rule that neither penalizes workers who hesitate to bring an action at the first sign of what they suspect could be discriminatory trouble nor rewards covered entities that discriminate by insulating them from challenges to their unlawful conduct that continues into the limitations period.
The continuing violation doctrine is discussed in the specific context of plaintiff's sexual harassment and disparate treatment claims, infra, at parts IV and V, respectively.
IV. Sexual Harassment
In 1986 the Supreme Court ruled, for federal law purposes, that sexual harassment must be "severe or pervasive" before it could be actionable (Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v Vinson, 477 US 57, 67 [1986]).[FN15]
The "severe or pervasive" rule has resulted in courts "assigning a significantly lower importance to the right to work in an atmosphere free from discrimination" than other terms and conditions of work.[FN16]
The rule (and its misapplication) has routinely barred the courthouse door to women who have, in fact, been treated less well than men because of gender.[FN17]
[*11]