(NOTE: The status of this decision is Published.) NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-1251-08T3 PAULA ALEXANDER, JOAN COLL, and CHERYL THOMPSON-SARD, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. APPROVED FOR PUBLICATION December 7, 2009 SETON HALL UNIVERSITY, JOHN J. MYERS, Archbishop of Newark, APPELLATE DIVISION President of Board of Regents, and Chair of Board of Trustees, and individually, ROBERT SHEERAN, President and individually, PAULA BULEY,1 Executive Vice President and individually, KAREN E. BOROFF, Dean of Stillman School of Business, and JOSEPH DEPIERRO, Dean of College of Education and Human Services, Defendants-Respondents. September 16, 2009 - Decided: December 7, 2009 Argued: Before Judges Stern, Graves and J.N. Harris. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, Docket No. L-6089-07. 1 This name was incorrectly identified in original caption as "Beuhle."  Patricia Breuninger argued the cause for appellants (Breuninger & Fellman, attorneys; Ms. Breuninger, on the brief). Rosemary S. Gousman argued the cause for respondents (Fisher & Phillips, LLP, attorneys; Ms. Gousman, of counsel; David J. Treibman, on the brief). The opinion of the court was delivered by STERN, P.J.A.D. This is a pay discrimination case based on sex and age. Plaintiffs appeal from a "consent amended final order of dismissal,"2 dismissing the balance of their complaint after the motion judge had previously, on May 2, 2008, dismissed "the allegations of [p]laintiffs' [c]omplaint that relate to wage decisions made prior to July 27, 2005, or the impact of those decisions upon plaintiffs' salaries following July 27, 2005," two years prior to the filing of the complaint on July 27, 2007. Plaintiffs argue "the refusal of the trial court to recognize the 'continuing violation' doctrine in plaintiffs' allegations of pay disparities was contrary to New Jersey law" and that the 2 Plaintiffs moved to dismiss the balance of the complaint because the order "effectively dismisses the entire [c]omplaint since nothing remains to be pursued. No 'discrete acts' of discrimination are alleged during the statute of limitations period." The order therefore states the "[c]omplaint [] relate[s] to wage decisions made prior to July 27, 2005, or have been remedied by wage adjustments made at or after the filing of the complaint." Thus, there is no issue of finality caused by the voluntary dismissal of part of the complaint. Cf. Grow Co., Inc. v. Chokshi, 403 N.J. Super. 443, 457-61 (App. Div. 2008). A-1251-08T3 2  trial court "erred in holding that [the United States Supreme Court's opinion in] Ledbetter [v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618, 127 S. Ct. 2162, 167 L. Ed. 2d 982 (2007)] is controlling in the present case." The suit was commenced by three long-time female Seton Hall University professors who alleged age and sex discrimination in pay in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD), N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et. seq. As noted, the trial court dismissed all claims arising two or more years before July 27, 2005, the date on which the complaint was filed. Plaintiffs allege that, because discovery was not completed, they do not know when the disparity commenced, but believe it "continued" until within two years of the complaint. However, defendant Seton Hall,3 in essence, contends that any pay discrimination was based on a "discrete act" as of the time any disparity commenced, which was outside the statute of limitations (that is more than two years before the complaint was filed), that the "continuing violation" doctrine is inapplicable, and that Ledbetter controls. We agree, and affirm the judgment substantially for the reasons stated by Judge Alfonse J. Cifelli in his oral opinion of May 2, 2008, as supplemented herein. 3 Because the individual defendants are all Seton Hall officials, we refer to all defendants as Seton Hall or defendant. A-1251-08T3 3  Because the dismissal, on statute of limitations grounds, was entered pursuant to R. 4:6-2(e), we treat the plaintiffs' See Banco allegations as true for purposes of this opinion. Popular v. Gandi, 184 N.J. 161, 165-66 (2005). Plaintiff Alexander began her employment at Seton Hall in 1976, has been a tenured Associate Professor in the Management Department of the Stillman School of Business since 1981, and was sixty-two years old at the time the complaint was filed. Plaintiff Coll began her employment at the University in 1981, became a tenured Full Professor, the highest rank at the University, in the Management Department of the Stillman School of Business in 1994, and was sixty-five at the time the complaint was filed. Plaintiff Thompson-Sard began her employment with Seton Hall in 1987, became a tenured Associate Professor in the College of Education and Human Services, Department of Professional Psychology and Family Therapy in 1991, and was sixty-one at the time the complaint was filed. In the fall of 2004 and fall of 2005, Seton Hall compiled summaries of faculty information arranged by college, gender, rank, and salary. Plaintiffs obtained copies of these summaries. In their complaint plaintiffs claimed that, although they had "always suspected that men earned more" than women in the same position, they learned in August 2005, when they A-1251-08T3 4  obtained the summaries, that this was true. They alleged that their salaries were disproportionately lower than male, "newer [and] [] younger faculty members," holding similar positions for the same or shorter periods: "[p]laintiffs claim discriminatory discrepancies between their salaries and those earned by younger and by male employees" and that "the older, tenured, higher ranking professors have suffered lost income in order for the University to finance the salaries of younger, less experienced, newer professors----many even before becoming tenured." Plaintiffs argue that their discrimination allegations are timely under the "continuing violations" doctrine, and that the doctrine applies to cases alleging discriminatory pay disparity. They further contend that Ledbetter, supra, 550 U.S. at 618, 127 S. Ct. at 2162, 167 L. Ed. 2d at 982, a pay discrimination case arising under Title VII, 42 U.S.C.A.