Issue: What sort of statute of limitations applies to hostile work environment claims in New Jersey?
| Area of Law: | Employee Law, Litigation & Procedure |
| Keywords: | Hostile work environment claim; Continuing tort doctrine; Statute of limitations |
| Jurisdiction: | New Jersey |
| Cited Cases: | 962 A.2d 1150; 133 N.J. 282; 204 N.J. 219; 804 A.2d 1193; 174 N.J. 1; 132 N.J. 587; 803 A.2d 611; 627 A.2d 654; 985 A.2d 1225 |
| Cited Statutes: | None |
| Date: | 10/01/2011 |
Discrimination claims under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), including claims alleging a hostile work environment, are subject to a two-year statute of limitations. Montells v. Haynes, 133 N.J. 282, 292, 627 A.2d 654 (1993). However, New Jersey courts have adopted the continuing violation doctrine concept, analogous to the continuing tort doctrine applied in other contexts, to permit recovery for the entire pattern of conduct that cumulates in a hostile environment, despite the fact that some of that conduct occurred outside the otherwise applicable limitations period. See Wilson v. Wal-Mart Stores, 158 N.J. 263, 266 (1999).
In Alexander v. Seton Hall University, 204 N.J. 219, 8 A.3d 198 (2010), the court explained that when the plaintiff’s complained-of conduct constituted “a series of separate acts that collectively constitute one unlawful employment practice,” the entire claim may be timely if filed within two years of “the date on which the last component act occurred.” 204 N.J. at 229 (quoting Roa v. Roa, 200 N.J. 555, 567, 985 A.2d 1225 (2010)). This “continuing violation” doctrine has been recognized under federal Title VII law as an equitable exception to the strict application of the statute of limitations. Id. New Jersey courts specifically adopted this doctrine in Shepherd v. Hunterdon Development Center, 174 N.J. 1, 803 A.2d 611 (2002). Id. “We turned to the equitable doctrine for assistance in addressing the […]