November 11, 2010 | No Comments
Posted by Jay S. Becker
This article appears in the November edition of New Jersey Labor And Employment Law Quarterly.
The New Jersey Supreme Court recently examined the continuing violation theory in a case holding that a plaintiff’s post-employment retaliation claims brought under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) were actionable. However, the continuing violation theory did not apply to permit the plaintiffs’ timely claim based on post-discharge conduct to revive the time-barred retaliatory discharge claim.
In Roa v. Lafe, the plaintiffs Fernando Roa and Liliana Roa sought damages from their employer, Gonzalaz and Tapanes Foods, Inc., doing business as LAFE Foods, and their supervisor Marino Roa. Marino was a vice-president at LAFE and was Fernando’s brother. The plaintiffs alleged that Marino was romantically involved with two female subordinates, one of whom left a Valentine’s gift for him that his wife found. After initially telling Marino that he would say the gift was intended for him, Fernando eventually spoke with Marino’s wife and divulged the truth behind the mystery gift. The plaintiffs alleged that in response, Marino began to harass and threaten them, including threatening to fire them. Some time later, Fernando approached Carlos Pena, owner and president of LAFE, and told him about Marino sexually harassing the two women. Pena refused to take any action, and following Fernando’s complaint, Marino’s harassment of plaintiffs intensified.
To read the full article, click here.