Under the continuing violations doctrine, an employer is liable for actions that took place outside the limitations period if these actions are sufficiently linked to unlawful conduct that occurred within the limitations period.  Here, Blue Fountain subjected the plaintiff to a continuous course of sexual harassment for more than a decade.  When plaintiff finally quit or was terminated, she sued.  The trial court correctly denied Blue Fountain’s summary judgment motion brought on statute of limitations grounds.  First, some of the acts of harassment took place within the normal limitations period, so summary judgment could not be granted even if the statute barred recovery for and admission of evidence about similar acts taken outside the limitations period.  Second, the continuing violation doctrine tolls the statute of limitations during the period before plaintiff should realize that further complaints are futile.  Here, that period restarted when a new owner bought the business a few years before suit was filed since it wasn’t obvious that complaints to the new owner would be futile even if complaints to pior management had been.  Third, there was a factual dispute about when it should have become apparent to plaintiff that complaints to the new owner, likewise, would be futile.