Kenneth Mr. Vercammen was included in the 2020 “Super Lawyers” list published by Thomson Reuters.

To schedule a confidential consultation, email us at, call or visit

(732) 572-0500

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

01-15-09 Toto v. Princeton Township A-0216-07T3

01-15-09 Fernando Toto v. Princeton Township
We affirm the dismissal of plaintiff's hostile work environment claim brought under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, (LAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to 10:5-49, because it is barred by the statute of limitations. Plaintiff maintained that
he left the workplace due to its hostile work environment and that he refused to return to work because the employer had not
remediated the problem. Due to his failure to return to work, plaintiff was terminated from his position. Under these
circumstances, the statute of limitations ran from the date plaintiff left the workplace and not the later date when he was
terminated from the position. His last day in the workplace was the last time that he could have experienced the hostile work
environment, and that is the day the statute of limitations began to run on that claim. At the trial on plaintiff's failure to accommodate claim under the LAD, the trial court properly declined to admit into evidence a letter that contained both admissible material on the issue of notice and inadmissible material prejudicial to the defense, where the trial court allowed plaintiff to question the witness about the admissible portions of the letter. We affirm.