Search form

New Jersey Supreme Court Bars Enforcement of Shortened Limitations Period for Discrimination Claims

By Martin W. Aron
  • June 16, 2016

The New Jersey Supreme Court has overturned an appellate court decision that allowed a shortened limitations period for filing discrimination claims under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“LAD”). Rodriguez v. Raymours Furniture Co., Inc., No. 074603 (June 15, 2016). In a case of first impression, the Court unanimously held that a private agreement shortening the two-year statute of limitations period for private LAD claims cannot be enforced.


Nine months after his termination, Sergio Rodriguez filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of New Jersey alleging that his former employer, Raymours Furniture Company, Inc., among other things, violated the LAD by discriminating against him based on his disability.

While the LAD itself contains no statute of limitations for bringing claims in state court, the state Supreme Court had established a two-year limitations to bring a suit.

The employer moved to dismiss Rodriguez’s claims, arguing that his complaint was time-barred under a waiver provision in Rodriguez’s initial employment application. The waiver required an applicant, if hired, to agree to bring employment-related causes of action against the employer within six months of the allegedly improper employment action.

The trial court granted the employer’s summary judgment motion and dismissed the complaint as time-barred.

On appeal, the Appellate Division upheld the trial court’s decision, finding the waiver provision that shortened to six months the two-year statute of limitations for filing claims against the employer enforceable.

Not Enforceable

The New Jersey Supreme Court disagreed with the lower courts.
It ruled a private agreement shortening the LAD statute of limitations period is unenforceable because:

  1. The legislature has effectively approved the two-year statute of limitations by not amending the LAD to provide for any other limitations period since it was established by case law 23 years ago and has acted consistently only to strengthen the LAD;
  2. The shortening of the limitations period would thwart the legislative scheme that gives an employee the option of taking his or her claim to the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights (“DCR”) within six months of the alleged unlawful employment action or filing a claim in the Superior Court within two years of the alleged unlawful employment action. The Supreme Court held that a shortened limitations period would work “as an effective divestiture of the right to pursue an administrative remedy” in the DCR. In essence, the Court viewed a six month limitations period as an insufficient period of time for a claimant to see if that agency would be able to provide remedial relief;
  3. Allowing a shortening of the statute of limitations might lead to the dismissal of otherwise meritorious LAD claims, as an employee does not always immediately realize that he or she was a victim of discrimination and needs time to take his or her claims to an attorney;
  4. Attorneys may file LAD actions prematurely in order to meet the shortened statute of limitations period. The Supreme Court noted that it may take attorneys “many months” to conduct a proper investigation to determine whether an employee’s claim is meritorious; and
  5. Shortening the statute of limitation period would affect an employer’s ability to protect itself, as employees would have to file claims before the employer was able to fully investigate and respond appropriately to a complaint.


New Jersey employers having agreements with their employees shortening the time to file a LAD claim (i.e., to less than two years) will no longer be able to enforce those agreements in litigation. Employers that operate in other states may still be able to enforce the waiver after evaluating the risks and benefits. After proper consideration, some employers may choose to include these waivers along with other provisions such as jury waivers.

If you have questions about this decision, or any other workplace issues, please contact the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

©2016 Jackson Lewis P.C. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Reproduction of this material in whole or in part is prohibited without the express prior written consent of Jackson Lewis P.C., a law firm with more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries. Having built its reputation on providing premier workplace law representation to management, the firm has grown to include leading practices in the areas of government relations, healthcare and sports law. For more information, visit

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

March 20, 2019

New Jersey Prohibits Enforcement of Non-Disclosure Provisions in Settlement Agreements, Other Contracts

March 20, 2019

A sweeping amendment to the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) bars enforcement of non-disclosure provisions in settlement agreements and employment contracts, and prohibits the waiver of substantive and procedural rights under the statute. The amendment applies to all contracts and agreements entered into, renewed, modified, or... Read More

February 28, 2019

Portland, Oregon, Bars Discrimination Against Atheists, Agnostics

February 28, 2019

An amendment to the civil rights code of Portland, Oregon, extends protections against discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations to atheists, agnostics, and other “non-believers.” Religious facilities are expressly exempt. The Portland City Code, chapter 23.01, already prohibits discrimination on the basis of... Read More

February 27, 2019

U.S. Supreme Court Holds Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) Is Not Subject to Equitable Tolling

February 27, 2019

In a decision important to class action practice, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), which establishes a 14-day deadline to seek permission to appeal an order granting or denying class certification, is not subject to equitable tolling. Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, No. 17-1094 (Feb. 26, 2019... Read More

Related Practices