Do you feel like the white rabbit in Lewis Carroll’s “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland,” lamenting about running late? Running late is one thing; missing a statute of limitations is a hare of another color.
The statute of limitations in employment cases has recently been examined by the United States Supreme Court in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc ., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), the United States Congress when passing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (“FPA”), and the New Jersey Appellate Division in Toto v. Princeton Township , 2009 WL 88499 (N.J. App. Div. Jan. 15, 2009). Each has taken divergent approaches, which have resulted in two important decisions and changes to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act. In Ledbetter , the Supreme Court limited an employee’s time to file pay discrimination lawsuits. Congress quickly reacted and reversed that limitation by passing the FPA. Meanwhile, in Toto v. Princeton Township , the Appellate Division addressed the statute of limitations for a hostile work environment claim under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq. (“LAD”).
The FPA
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
