not be expected to know the applicable statute of limitations. However, in this case, the record is clear: Plaintiffs Tort Claim Notice was drafted by her attorney, who is charged with knowledge of the applicable two-year statute of limitations. (Plaintiff has never argued that the statute of limitations was tolled, and the record does not support any tolling argument.) Moreover, Plaintiff never filed a lawsuit based on the allegations in the Tort Claim Notice; she admits that she never complained to anyone about the alleged incidents until filing the notice in 2007 (Pi’s Dep. at p. 66-68, 70-71); and as a legal matter, Plaintiff did not need to file a Tort Claim Notice in order to pursue her sexual harassment claims. See Fuchilla v. Layman, 109 N.J. 319, 337-38, 537 A.2d 652 (1988) (<HOLDING>). These facts, when considered together in the
holding that a report of findings by the new jersey division of civil rights did not qualify for any hearsay exception in a discrimination case brought under the lad holding that claims based on asserted violations of the lad and  1983 are not subject to the new jersey tort claims act recognizing israel had no interest in denying its citizens the substantive advantages of new jersey defamation law in new jersey residents claims for defamation published in new jersey holding that claims under 42 usc  1983 are not personal injury tort claims holding that claims including constitutional claims must be asserted in trial court to be raised on appeal