Alexander v. Seton Hall University
204 N.J. 219
| N.J. | 2010Background
- Three Seton Hall tenured female professors alleged LAD wage discrimination based on age and sex.
- Disparities shown by a 2004-2005 salary report comparing wages by age, gender, rank.
- Plaintiffs claimed younger/male colleagues earned more; sought damages from dates of hire.
- Trial court adopted Ledbetter framework, dismissing pre-limitations-period pay decisions as untimely.
- Appellate Division affirmed; questioned continuing violation doctrine applicability to wage claims.
- This Court granted certification to reexamine LAD accrual and timeliness in wage discrimination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does LAD wage discrimination accrue as a discrete act or continuing violation? | Alexander argues continuing violations toll the period. | Seton Hall argues discrete pay-setting acts trigger accrual. | Wage discrimination accrues as continued discrete acts; not a broad continuing violation. |
| Should Ledbetter analysis be imported to LAD wage claims in New Jersey? | Plaintiffs seek Ledbetter approach to sweep prior wages timely. | University favors Ledbetter framework for accrual/tolling. | Ledbetter import is not adopted; NJ precedent governs timeliness. |
| What is the governing tolling framework for discriminatory wages under LAD? | Plaintiffs urge continuing-wage tolling to cover earlier periods. | University urges two-year accrual and severable later pay. | Two-year statute applies; each timely wage is a renewed actionable wrong. |
| Is the complaint timely for wages paid within the two years before filing? | Plaintiffs contend timely wages within two-year window suffice. | Defendants contend earlier discriminatory acts outside window bar relief. | Complaint timely for wages paid in the two years prior to filing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (U.S. 2007) (set framework for accrual in wage discrimination claims)
- Shepherd v. Hunterdon Developmental Center, 174 N.J. 1 (N.J. 2002) (adopted Morgan continuing-violation analysis for accrual)
- National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2002) (distinguishes discrete acts from ongoing harassment claims)
- Montells v. Haynes, 133 N.J. 282 (N.J. 1993) (two-year LAD limitations generally applies)
- Decker v. Bd. of Educ. of Elizabeth, 153 N.J. Super. 470 (App. Div. 1977) (each pay period deemed a new unlawful act under LAD)
- Terry v. Mercer County Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 173 N.J. Super. 249 (App. Div. 1980) (paying unequal wages treated as continuing violations under LAD)
- Roa v. Roa, 200 N.J. 555 (N.J. 2010) (clarifies continuing violation limits and discovery rule)
- Alexander v. Seton Hall Univ., 410 N.J. Super. 574 (App. Div. 2009) (Ledbetter-driven approach rejected in LAD context)