By: Ty Hyderally, Esq. and Jamie Davila, Esq.

Date: October 1, 2026

Employees who believe they have been discriminated against at work may understandably wait before contacting an attorney. Some hope the situation will improve. When discriminatory conduct appears to continue over time, an employee may assume that the deadline to bring a lawsuit likewise continues to run. However, a recent 3^rd Circuit ruling serves as an important reminder that this assumption can be costly.

In Hobbs v. New Jersey Civil Service Commission, No. 25-2076, the Court affirmed the dismissal of claims under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“NJLAD”) because the alleged discriminatory employment actions occurred more than two years before the lawsuit was filed. The Court also rejected the plaintiff’s attempt to rely on the “continuing violation” doctrine to reach the older alleged acts. The decision was made on August 3, 2026[1].

Hobbs highlights a critical distinction for New Jersey employees: an ongoing hostile work environment and a series of separate discriminatory employment decisions are not treated the same way when determining whether a lawsuit was filed on time.

What Happened in Hobbs? 

The plaintiff, Tameca Hobbs, sued the New Jersey Civil Service Commission and several individuals, asserting claims including racial discrimination under the NJLAD and violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title VII.[2] She alleged, among other things, interference with employment opportunities and other forms of mistreatment.[3]

The Federal District Court dismissed the lawsuit after allowing the complaint to be amended twice. On appeal, the Court affirmed the lower Court’s decision.[4]

The Court explained that claims under the NJLAD are subject to a two-year statute of limitations. Additionally, Section 1983 claims arising in New Jersey were subject to the same two-year limitations period because federal courts borrow the state’s personal-injury limitations period for those claims. [5]

According to the court, each of the alleged lost employment opportunities occurred more than two years before Hobbs filed her lawsuit. Her NJLAD and Section 1983 claims were therefore untimely.

An Important Note: A Continuing Violation Is Not Simply Continuing Harm 

An employee might reasonably believe that if discrimination continues for several years, the entire course of conduct can be included in a later lawsuit. But employment discrimination law draws an important distinction between a continuing discriminatory environment and individual adverse employment decisions.

The Court rejected Hobbs’s attempt to rely on the continuing violation doctrine because the alleged lost employment opportunities constituted discrete acts, rather than one continuing hostile work environment.

A termination, refusal to hire, failure to promote, demotion, or other completed employment decision may constitute a discrete act. The employee generally cannot assume that a later, similar occurrence automatically restarts the limitations period for an earlier event. Hobbs reinforces that multiple allegedly discriminatory decisions do not necessarily become one continuing violation simply because an employee believes they are related.

Why Hostile Work Environment Claims Can Be Different 

A hostile work environment may develop through an accumulation of conduct. Rather than one isolated employment decision creating the entire claim, a series of incidents may collectively create an unlawful employment environment.

The continuing violation doctrine recognizes that distinction. As the Hobbs court explained, the doctrine applies in the context of a hostile work environment rather than allowing plaintiffs to combine separate, discrete discriminatory acts to avoid an expired limitations period. That does not mean that every allegation of ongoing mistreatment qualifies as a continuing violation. The particular facts and nature of the alleged conduct matter. For employees, the safer approach is therefore not to assume that conduct is “continuing” for limitations purposes merely because workplace problems remain unresolved.

The Two-Year NJLAD Deadline Can Arrive Faster Than Expected 

The NJLAD is one of New Jersey’s principal workplace civil-rights statutes. But the substantive strength of an employee’s discrimination claim does little good if the lawsuit is filed outside the applicable limitations period.

The Court reiterated in Hobbs that an NJLAD claim carries a two-year statute of limitations, ordinarily measured from the date of the discriminatory act. If an employee believes she was denied a promotion because of race, sex, age, disability, religion, or another protected characteristic, the limitations analysis may focus on that particular promotion decision. If another promotion is denied a year later, an employee should not automatically assume that the second event extends the deadline to sue over the first.

Similarly, an employee who continues working for the employer after an alleged discriminatory demotion should not assume that every paycheck following the demotion keeps the original discrimination claim alive.

The distinction between the effects of a past decision and a new discriminatory act can therefore become extremely important.

Internal Complaints Should Not Create a False Sense of Security 

An employee may first report discrimination to a supervisor, human resources department, union representative, or compliance office. But employees should be cautious about assuming that an employer’s internal investigation or grievance procedure automatically preserves their right to later pursue a claim in court.

Where a statutory deadline is running, waiting for an employer’s internal process to conclude can create significant risk. Employees who suspect workplace discrimination therefore should consider obtaining legal advice early, even while an internal investigation remains pending.

What Does Hobbs Mean for New Jersey Employers? 

Employers should note that Hobbs is expressly nonprecedential and the decision therefore should be viewed principally as an application of existing limitations principles to the allegations before the court, rather than as a new binding rule governing every NJLAD case.

The biggest lesson from Hobbs may be the simplest: Do not assume that continuing workplace problems mean that the time to pursue an earlier discrimination claim is also continuing.

Under New Jersey law, the distinction between a discrete discriminatory act and a continuing hostile work environment can determine whether a claim survives or is dismissed without consideration of its ultimate merits. In Hobbs, the plaintiff’s allegations concerning lost employment opportunities could not be revived through the continuing violation doctrine because the court treated them as discrete acts occurring outside the applicable two-year period.

Employees who believe they have suffered workplace discrimination, retaliation, or harassment should therefore speak with employment counsel promptly. If you have any questions regarding your rights as an employee, you should seek an experienced attorney who concentrates in employment law. Our firm has been concentrating in employment law for over twenty-three (23) years!

En nuestra firma hablamos español. This blog is for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and may not reasonably be relied upon as such. If you face a legal issue, you should consult a qualified attorney for independent legal advice regarding your particular set of facts. This blog may constitute attorney advertising. This blog is not intended to communicate with anyone in a state or other jurisdiction where such a blog may fail to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state or jurisdiction.

[1] Hobbs v. New Jersey Civil Service Commission, No. 25-2076

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Id. At 1.