## Facts

- Three female tenured professors at Seton Hall University alleged they were paid less than comparable colleagues because of sex and age.
- In 2005, they obtained an internal salary report that, they claimed, showed gender-based pay disparities and that newer, younger faculty were paid more than longer-serving faculty.
- Plaintiffs contended the disparity persisted over many years and sought back pay reaching to their respective hiring dates.
- On July 27, 2007, plaintiffs sued under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), alleging discriminatory compensation based on sex and age.
- The trial court dismissed as untimely, treating recent paychecks as mere effects of earlier pay-setting decisions made outside the two-year limitations period; the Appellate Division affirmed.

## Issues

1. For LAD wage-discrimination claims, does the statute of limitations run only from the employer’s original discriminatory pay-setting decision, making later unequal paychecks non-actionable if the initial decision is time-barred?
2. If each discriminatory paycheck is actionable, does the two-year limitations period bar the entire claim or only limit the period for which back pay may be recovered?

## Decision

- The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- The Court rejected importing the federal accrual approach that treats unequal paychecks as non-actionable effects of earlier decisions.
- The Court held that each payment of discriminatory wages is a separate actionable wrong under the LAD.
- The Court held the two-year statute of limitations does not extinguish the claim; it bars recovery for paychecks issued more than two years before suit and limits damages accordingly.

## Legal Principles

- Under the LAD, payment of unequal wages because of sex or age is itself an unlawful employment practice, and each discriminatory paycheck can trigger a timely claim.
- The LAD’s two-year limitations period functions as a cutoff for recoverable damages for older paychecks, not as a rule that eliminates liability for discriminatory paychecks within the limitations period.
- Earlier pay decisions and older paychecks may be relevant as background evidence of an ongoing pattern, even when damages for those paychecks are time-barred.
- Interpretations of federal limitations rules for Title VII wage claims do not control accrual rules under the LAD, a distinct state remedial statute.

## Conclusion

The court held that wage discrimination under the LAD accrues with each discriminatory paycheck, allowing claims based on paychecks within two years of filing while limiting back-pay recovery to the two-year period preceding suit.


Alexander v. Seton Hall Univ., 204 N.J. 219, 8 A.3d 198 (2010)