A husband and wife were fired from a New Jersey family business. They both sued for discrimination more than 2 years after their terminations, which the trial court said was after the expiration of the statute of limitations. They countered that the discrimination against them continued even after they were fired.

What happened.A husband and wife, both worked for LAFE, a New Jersey distributor of Hispanic food products. LAFE's vice-president (VP) supervised them both.

According to the husband, in February 2003, the VP's wife discovered that her husband had been involved in extramarital affairs with two LAFE employees. He claimed that the VP tried to get him to say that he was actually the one involved in the trysts. He said he felt pressure to comply because of his subordinate position in the company, but decided not to and confirmed the affairs to the VP's wife. The husband and wife claimed that after that, the VP began to harass them both. He said that he tried to tell LAFE's president about the VP's behavior, in particular that he was sexually harassing employees, but the president rebuffed him.

LAFE terminated the wife in August 2003 and terminated the husband about 2 months later. When she applied for unemployment benefits, LAFE claimed that she had been fired for misconduct and was ineligible. She appealed and did eventually start receiving benefits in February 2004. Meanwhile, she had surgery on October 2, 2003, while her husband was still working at LAFE. On November 11, he received a letter from LAFE's insurer informing him that the operation was not covered because he had been terminated from LAFE effective September 30. LAFE took responsibility for the hospital bills in February 2004, but the husband claimed that by this time the unpaid debt from the hospital bills adversely affected his credit and LAFE had caused him "stress and anxiety."

The husband and wife believed that their terminations and the cancellation of their medical benefits/insurance were retaliation for complaining about the VP's behavior. They sued LAFE in November 2005. The trial court dismissed their case, finding that they had filed it too late and that the statute of limitations had expired. They appealed.

What the court said. The New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) (NJ Rev. Stat. Sec. 10:5-1 et seq.) has a 2-year statute of limitations. The couple had to file their lawsuit within 2 years of the dates of the alleged discriminatory conduct. LAFE argued that in this case, the relevant conduct was the alleged retaliatory discharges, which happened on August 24 and October 12, 2003. November 3, 2005, was more than 2 years after both of the firings.

The couple, however, argued that LAFE's discriminatory conduct continued after the dates of the terminations. In particular, they cited the November 11 letter denying their insurance benefits, and the denial of her unemployment benefits until February 2004.

The court of appeals decided that the trial court had been mistaken in using the dates of termination as the sole dates for starting the LAD statute of limitations. LAD's antiretaliation provisions can apply to a number of different acts that harm an employee, not just termination. Any sort of reprisal could constitute unlawful discrimination. The court should have looked at whether a "continuing violation" within the appropriate time period is unlawful under LAD.

In the man's case, the court found that the notice of the cancellation of his insurance on November 11 could have been considered a discriminatory act. It was close in time to his termination, and he had no reason to know ahead of time that his insurance had been cancelled. The court ruled that his case should have been allowed to proceed. In the woman's case, however, the court found that the statute of limitations had run out. She was terminated on August 24, and that was the effective end of discriminatory conduct against her by LAFE. The successful end of her appeal for unemployment benefits the following February was too far removed in time to make a case for continuing discrimination. Roa v. LAFE, Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, No. A-2588-06T3 (7/7/08).

Point to remember: Courts may find that discrimination can stretch over a long time period, and as this case shows, it doesn't necessarily stop the day an employee is fired.