STEVE WILSON VS. PAUL MESSINAÂ (L-1104-11, MERCER COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-3469-15T1

Background

Plaintiff Steve Wilson, a Trenton police officer, sued the City of Trenton Police Department and his supervisor Paul Messina under the LAD, CEPA (later withdrawn), and the NJ Civil Rights Act, alleging racial discrimination and retaliation spanning ~2005–2013.
Original complaint filed April 19, 2011; discovery was prolonged (including counsel illness/death); Wilson’s deposition completed July 2015.
Wilson testified the last adverse contact with Messina before filing occurred in August 2008; no discriminatory acts occurred between August 2008 and filing of the 2011 complaint.
After deposition, Wilson obtained leave to amend (Sept. 2015) to add three post-2011 incidents (2012–2013): denial of vacation/sick requests, a transfer to midnight patrol, and being relieved from duty during a 2013 hostage incident.
Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing LAD claims were time-barred (two-year statute), continuing-violation and equitable-tolling doctrines did not save prior acts, and the new claims were untimely or not materially adverse.
Trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, holding pre-2011 acts time-barred, continuing-violation and equitable tolling inapplicable, and post-2011 supplemental acts untimely or not actionable; Appellate Division affirms.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of pre-2011 LAD claims	Wilson argued his multi-year pattern of conduct is actionable under the continuing-violation theory	Defendants argued last discriminatory act was Aug 2008 so 2011 filing is untimely under two-year LAD limit	Held: Time-barred; continuing-violation inapplicable because no act occurred within two years before filing
Equitable tolling	Wilson claimed IA lieutenant told him to "lay back" and wait, which induced delay in hiring counsel or filing	Defendants argued the lieutenant’s request was not trickery or misconduct to justify tolling	Held: Tolling denied—no evidence of inducement/trickery sufficient to toll limitations
Relation-back / post-complaint supplemental claims	Wilson argued post-filing retaliation claims (2012–2013) are independently actionable or relate back to original complaint	Defendants argued those discrete acts accrued outside the LAD period and cannot revive earlier acts; relation-back cannot reach future events	Held: Supplemental discrete acts are untimely; relation-back/continuing-violation cannot aggregate to revive earlier time-barred acts
Material adversity of supplemental acts	Wilson contended transfer/denial of leave and temporary removal from duty were retaliatory and actionable	Defendants argued the acts were minor, non-material, and thus not adverse under LAD/retaliation standards	Held: Even if timely, the claimed post-2011 acts were not materially adverse and thus not actionable retaliation

Key Cases Cited

Montells v. Haynes, 133 N.J. 282 (1993) (establishes two-year statute of limitations for LAD claims)
Shepherd v. Hunterdon Developmental Ctr., 174 N.J. 1 (2002) (continuing-violation requires at least one act within the limitations period)
Dunn v. Borough of Mountainside, 301 N.J. Super. 262 (App. Div. 1997) (equitable tolling applies when complainant is induced or tricked by adversary misconduct)
Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 498 U.S. 89 (1990) (equitable tolling principles regarding deadlines)
Roa v. Roa, 200 N.J. 555 (2011) (discrete discriminatory acts accrue on the date of occurrence; cannot be aggregated to revive untimely acts)
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (retaliation requires a materially adverse action)
Villalobos v. Fava, 342 N.J. Super. 38 (App. Div. 2001) (equitable tolling not supported by mere requests to wait for internal investigation)
R.A.C. v. P.J.S., Jr., 192 N.J. 81 (2007) (declining tolling where no overt deception caused plaintiff to delay)