PROVIDENCE — Less than a month after the U.S. Supreme Court limited the ability of workers nationwide to sue their employers for discrimination, the Rhode Island Supreme Court shut down a separate avenue for some victims seeking a legal remedy in state court.

In a decision late last month, the state Supreme Court ruled that victims of employment discrimination have only one year to file a complaint under the Rhode Island Civil Rights Act, not the three years given to victims of most types of personal injury.

Though the Rhode Island Civil Rights Act, enacted in 1990, does not specify a statute of limitations, the court applied the one-year limit imposed by the legislature in a similar law, the Fair Employment Practices Act, approved in 1949.

That decision was a blow to civil-rights advocates who have urged greater flexibility, arguing that many victims of discrimination in pay do not learn of the disparities until years after their salary is set.

“What this decision does is treat victims of employment discrimination in a less favorable manner than people who are injured in just about any other way,” said Steven Brown, executive director of the Rhode Island Affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union. “It seems very unfair.”

The U.S. Supreme Court took a similar position in an unrelated case in May, ruling in a 5-to-4 decision that employees alleging discrimination in pay must bring suit in federal court no more than 180 days after their salary is established, even if the wage disparity persists or grows throughout their career.

In Rhode Island, the state Supreme Court justices were asked to rule on the issue by the U.S. District Court, which is hearing a lawsuit brought by Lynore Horn alleging violations of state and federal civil-rights laws by Horn’s former employer, the New England Gas Co., a division of the Southern Union Co.

Horn accused Southern Union of creating a hostile work environment that violated the Rhode Island Civil Rights Act’s protection against gender bias.

Horn worked for the company in various positions from 1989 until two years ago.

In the case — in which she has represented herself — Horn alleged “sexually-charged harassment” and “physically threatening behavior” by coworkers, according to federal court filings.

Southern Union argued that Horn had exceeded the statute of limitations for claims under the state law, prompting the District Court to request clarification from the state Supreme Court.

The company was supported in a friend-of-the-court brief by the Defense Counsel of Rhode Island and the New England Legal Foundation, a nonprofit group that advocates limited government.

In the majority opinion, Justice William P. Robinson III sided with Southern Union, arguing that lawmakers intended for the Rhode Island Civil Rights Act to be interpreted in light of the Fair Employment Practices Act, specifically in regards to the statute of limitations.

The laws are so similar, Robinson wrote, that allowing a longer time period for filing suit under the 1990 statute would render “meaningless” the earlier law by “allowing plaintiffs an end run around the limitations provision.”

Robinson also defended the 1-year limit, writing that investigations of employment discrimination should be initiated before the “evidentiary trail grows cold.”

That reasoning, however, did not persuade Justices Paul A. Suttell or Francis X. Flaherty, resulting in a rare, and strident, dissenting opinion.

(The court’s 2005-to-2006 term saw only five full dissents, down from 13 in the 2003-2004 term.)

In an 11-page dissenting opinion, Suttell argued that the state’s two major civil-rights laws are “distinct and independent” and should be treated that way.

The 1949 Fair Employment Practices Act requires alleged victims of discrimination to participate in a complex administrative process, supervised by the Rhode Island Commission for Human Rights.

By contrast, the 1990 Rhode Island Civil Rights Act allows a worker to proceed directly to court — a “significant functional distinction,” according to the dissenting justices.

In his opinion, Suttell rejected the assumption that lawmakers intended the one-year limit to apply to both statutes, and he said imposing a limitation is a job for the legislature, not the court.

Civil-rights advocates have also argued that the two laws differ significantly.

The newer statute, they say, applies to companies large and small, and it protects against a range of discrimination, not only in the work place.

In an interview, Lynette Labinger, the lawyer who wrote a friend-of-the-court brief for the ACLU, said the Rhode Island Civil Rights Act also afforded victims more time to discover discrimination, at least until now.

Her brief was signed by the Rhode Island Disability Law Center and the Rhode Island Civil Rights Roundtable, a coalition of civil-rights groups.

“It’s very unfortunate and disappointing,” Labinger said of the ruling. “It was designed to be a broad-based protection.”

“A one-year rush to the courthouse will deprive many discrimination victims of a meaningful opportunity to secure their right to enforce their civil rights,” Labinger wrote in her brief.

Labinger said the ruling did not close the door on potential claims of “continuing discrimination.” Some victims who have exceeded the statute of limitations, she added, might be able to file suit under the state whistleblower’s law, which allows three years for a complaint to be made.

Those avenues could become increasingly important for Rhode Island residents, if U.S. Supreme Court rulings continue to limit access to federal civil-rights protections, says Michael J. Yelnosky, an expert in labor law at the Ralph R. Papitto School of Law at Roger Williams University.

“State courts and state law,” Yelnosky said yesterday, “are very important pieces of the employment discrimination puzzle.”

bgedan@projo.com