Court Clarifies Statute of Limitations and Scope of Discovery in New Jersey Pay Equity Suit, Highlighting Importance of Conducting Equal Pay Audits

In Affrunti v. Reed Smith LLP, Sherri A. Affrunti (“Affrunti” or “Plaintiff”), a former non-equity partner, brought suit alleging violations of the New Jersey Diane B. Allen Equal Pay Act (the “Equal Pay Act”). The Mercer County Law Division (“Law Division”) entered an order limiting damages and narrowing the scope of discovery with respect to the defendant Reed Smith LLP’s (“Reed Smith” or “Defendant”) firmwide pay data. On November 20, 2025, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division (the “Appellate Division”) reversed the Law Division and held that, despite Plaintiff filing a lawsuit a year and a half after the Equal Pay Act took effect, Plaintiff is entitled to sue for back pay and damages dating back two (2) years from the filing.

Case Background and Ruling

After Plaintiff resigned from her employment as a non-equity partner with Reed Smith on January 11, 2019, she filed a lawsuit alleging, among other claims, disparate pay in violation of the Equal Pay Act and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“NJLAD”). The Equal Pay Act, which took effect on July 1, 2018, expanded protections under the NJLAD and provides that aggrieved employees may obtain up to six (6) years of back pay for pay discrimination claims. The Law Division held that the Equal Pay Act did not apply retroactively and ruled that Plaintiff could only seek damages from the date the Act took effect through the date of her resignation (i.e., July 1, 2018 through January 11, 2019). While the Appellate Division agreed that the Equal Pay Act does not apply retroactively, it concluded that the Law Division erred in its prospective application of the Equal Pay Act to the scope of Plaintiff’s damages.

The Appellate Division noted that, prior to the enactment of the Equal Pay Act, claims brought under NJLAD were subject to a two (2)-year statute of limitations triggered by the last “discrete” act of discrimination. In this case, the Appellate Division held that Plaintiff should be entitled to pursue claims for disparate pay under the NJLAD dating back two (2) years prior to the date she filed her complaint (i.e., December 18, 2018 through December 18, 2020), rather than being limited to the six (6)-month period between the Equal Pay Act’s effective date and the date of Plaintiff’s resignation (i.e., July 1, 2018 through January 11, 2019). Essentially, the Appellate Division found that the passage of the Equal Pay Act did not eliminate or shorten the pre‑existing two (2)‑year lookback period under the NJLAD.

Separately, the Appellate Division held that the Equal Pay Act allows Plaintiff to obtain data on compensation paid to other non-equity partners across the country—not just in Defendant’s New Jersey office—dating back to the date Plaintiff was elevated to non-equity partner (i.e., January 1, 2016). The Appellate Division reasoned that the Equal Pay Act supports broad discovery of comparator compensation data across all of an employer’s offices and that Defendant, although headquartered outside New Jersey, is considered a single employer for purposes of the Equal Pay Act.

What Should Employers Do Now?

The Affrunti decision underscores the importance of proactive measures to reduce exposure to pay discrimination claims. Employers should conduct regular, comprehensive pay equity audits and involve legal counsel to ensure audits are properly executed and, at least in part, protected by attorney-client privilege. Given the Appellate Division’s broad discovery ruling—which significantly increases the cost of defending these claims—the costs of litigation are high. Regular audits, coupled with legal guidance, are essential to mitigating risk and maintaining compliance in this evolving area of law.