Ogletree Deakins Ogletree Deakins
Home > Insights & Resources > Blog Posts > Allegations Of Lost Promotions Not Subject To Continuing Violation Analysis; Each Lost Promotion Is A Discrete Instance Of Discrimination

Allegations Of Lost Promotions Not Subject To Continuing Violation Analysis; Each Lost Promotion Is A Discrete Instance Of Discrimination

Download PDFPrintShare

Coffey v. Home Depot, et al., Law Div., Burlington Cty. (Suter, J.S.C.) – In this 2007 trial court decision, plaintiff alleged disparate treatment racial discrimination due to defendant’s failure to promote him five times in 2002. In addition to the fact that the alleged incidents were outside of the two-year LAD statute of limitations, the Court found each allegation of lost promotion to be a discrete instance of alleged discrimination and not susceptible to a continuing violation analysis.

Coffey v. Home Depot, et al., Law Div., Burlington Cty. (Suter, J.S.C.) – In this 2007 trial court decision, plaintiff alleged disparate treatment racial discrimination due to defendant’s failure to promote him five times in 2002.  In addition to the fact that the alleged incidents were outside of the two-year LAD statute of limitations, the Court found each allegation of lost promotion to be a discrete instance of alleged discrimination and not susceptible to a continuing violation analysis.

Note: This article was published in the May 2008 issue of the New Jersey eAuthority.

Topics

Employment Law

Browse More Insights

Podcasts Seminars Webinars
Fountain pen signing a document, close view with center focus
Practice Group

Employment Law

Ogletree Deakins’ employment lawyers are experienced in all aspects of employment law, from day-to-day advice to complex employment litigation.

Learn more

Sign up to receive emails about new developments and upcoming programs.

Sign Up Now