Reed Smith LLP is contesting an attempt by former non-equity partner Sherri A. Affrunti to extend the period for which she seeks damages in her pay discrimination lawsuit. The firm argues that the legal doctrine she invokes to revive continuing claims does not apply to the collection of back pay.
Affrunti alleges that during her tenure at Reed Smith, she was underpaid by up to 80% compared to her male counterparts. She contends that the 2018 Diane B. Allen Equal Pay Act should be applied retroactively, allowing her to claim damages for a six-year period. However, Reed Smith maintains that the law does not have retroactive effect and that any claims should be limited to the period immediately preceding her departure from the firm in 2019.
In October 2025, Affrunti presented her case to the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division, emphasizing the legislature’s intent for the Equal Pay Act to serve as a “game changer” in addressing pay disparities. The appellate panel, however, expressed skepticism about retroactively applying the law, referencing recent state Supreme Court decisions that limit such applications. Judge Thomas W. Sumners Jr. questioned the fairness of holding employers accountable for periods before they were notified of potential liability.
Reed Smith’s attorney, Sean P. Joyce of Carmagnola & Ritardi, argued that New Jersey courts have consistently interpreted statutes with immediate or future effective dates as applying prospectively. He cited a 2024 New Jersey Supreme Court ruling that restricts retroactive employer liability except in rare circumstances.
The appellate judges appeared more receptive to revisiting the trial court’s limitations on Affrunti’s discovery requests. Judge Mark K. Chase noted that discovery aims to uncover information that could lead to admissible evidence, suggesting that broader access to firm-wide pay data might be warranted.
This case underscores the complexities surrounding the retroactive application of equal pay legislation and the challenges plaintiffs face in seeking extended damages periods. The outcome may have significant implications for how similar claims are adjudicated in New Jersey and beyond.