Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD)
The New Jersey Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of plaintiff's claims of age discrimination and retaliation under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD). The court found that the two individual defendants in this case were not involved in any allegedly adverse employment actions within the two-year statute of limitations. The "continuing violation doctrine" is an equitable exception to the NJLAD statute of limitations but, "by definition, [a continuing violation] is comprised of a pattern or series of acts connected for liability purposes by the fact that an act contributing to the claim occurred within the filing period" Shepherd v Hunterdon Development Center quoting National R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan.
In New Jersey, an employee who feels he or she has been the victim of discrimination has two years from the date of the discriminatory incident to file a claim under the Law Against Discrimination. If the employee fails to file a claim within the two years, the employer has a defense. This period is referred to as a 'statute of limitations'. There is, however, case law suggesting that a "continuing violation" may expand the statute of limitations beyond the two year period.
In Settineri v. PNC Bank, the New Jersey Appellate Division recognized that this two-year period may be too stringent in all situations, and has utilized the equitable theory of "continuing violation" to provide some relief. As defined by the Court, a continuing violation is "a pattern or series of acts connected, for liability purposes by the fact that an act contributing to the claim occurred within the filing period." Stated differently, the Court now views related incidents of discrimination as one continuous violation, rather than applying a two-year filing period to each isolated event.
It is important to note that the discrimination itself must be ongoing, not just the effects of the discrimination. For instance, where an employee is the victim of discrimination in pay, the employer may be liable for every pay period in which the discrimination occurred. If the plaintiff could show that the discrimination extended all the way back to her first paycheck ten years ago, the employer mat be liable to make up the difference for the entire ten years.
Recently, publicity involving New Jersey Governor James McGreevey asserted that a continuing violation theory may have been utilized by the plaintiff against Governor McGreevey. It is unknown whether this theory would have been successful as it is unclear if the plaintiff could have proven a continuing violation to satisfy the law. However, it is clear that a continuing violation theory may expand the Statute of Limitations.
Does a plaintiff have to even file a charge with the eeoc or some state agency to proceed into court?
Where in NJ law does it state employees have two years to file their discrimination claim?
Andre,
Thank you for your question. The statute of limitations for claims arising under New Jersey's Law Against Discrimination (LAD) was established by the New Jersey Supreme Court in Montells v. Haynes, 133 N.J. 282 (1993). However, the two year statute of limitations, which relates to the filing a private lawsuit, is only a general guide. Depending on the circumstances surrounding an individual's case, this time period may be shortened or extended.
If you have more specific questions regarding New Jersey's LAD and/or the statute of limitations for filing a claim, feel free to contact me.
My employer has placed me on an undesirable shift because they sate that my light duty restrictions cannot be accomodated on day shift. There is plenty of work on day shift that I am able to perform but the company says that they can't accomodate me now. I had asked for the company to modify my work area to make it easier on my surgically repaired arm but the company ignored me. Since then my condition has worsened
therefore the company has placed my on an undesirable night shift. Seniority takes precedent in shift assignments at work