The following excerpt is from Andrews v. Fremantlemedia, N.A., No. 14-4665-cv (2nd Cir. 2015):
Here, the district court properly concluded that plaintiffs' claims accrued when they were eliminated from the show, which was communicated to each plaintiff at the time of their respective eliminations. Insofar as plaintiffs submit that the limitations periods did not begin to run until plaintiffs knew or had reason to know of the allegedly discriminatory motives for their eliminations, we need not here decide whether accrual can ever be so based because plaintiffs have failed in any event plausibly to allege that they did not have reason to know of those motives until 2012.1 Cf. Miller v. Int'l Tel. & Tel. Corp., 755 F.2d 20, 24 (2d Cir. 1985) (stating that limitations period for age discrimination claims "commence[s] upon the employer's commission of the discriminatory act and [is] not tolled or delayed pending the employee's realization that the conduct was discriminatory" absent extraordinary circumstances). Indeed, the allegations in the Third Amended Complaint demonstrate that, at least as early as 2005, media outlets publicized the fact that similarly-situated Caucasian contestants were not eliminated or disqualified from the competition. See Third Am. Compl. 905, 911, 937. Thus, the district court did not err in its application of the statute of limitations to plaintiffs' claims.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.