18th Annual Workplace Class Action Report - 2022 Edition

426 Annual Workplace Class Action Litigation Report: 2022 Edition concluded that the Brokers Act amendments may affect the application of a test for determining a real estate salesperson’s. The amendments not only authorized independent contractor relationships; but also they did so, notwithstanding any other law, rule, or regulation to the contrary. As such the Appellate Division opined that based on the 2018 statute’s plain language, the Legislature evidently concluded that an independent contractor relationship could subsist, even though a broker exercised the extensive controls over his or her salespersons that the Brokers Act required. The Appellate Division generally rejected Defendant’s contention that the Brokers Act precluded application of the ABC test in his case, because any inconsistency only arose on and after August 10, 2018, which was the effective date of amendments to the Brokers Act. At most, the amendments could only have a minor impact on the dispute at hand because the statute became effective August 10, 2018, and Plaintiff sought damages for the period between August 8, 2012 and November 6, 2018. Hence, the Brokers Act amendments (which were prospective) would apply only to the last three months or so of Plaintiff’s relationship with Defendant. In sum, the Appellate Division held that the trial court correctly ruled that the ABC test was the appropriate test to determine whether Plaintiff and the putative class members were employees under the WPL for the period until August 9, 2018. For the period thereafter, the Appellate Division ordered that the trial court should determine the appropriate test in light of the Brokers Act on a full factual record. For these reasons, the Appellate Division affirmed, as modified, the trial court’s order denying Defendant’s motion to dismiss. Keyes, et al. v. Montclair State University, 2021 N.J. Super. LEXIS 74 (N.J. App. Div. May 21, 2021). Plaintiff, a university student, filed a class action alleging claims of breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and conversion in connection with Defendant’s move to online instruction in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court granted. Following the COVID-19 pandemic, the Governor of New Jersey declared a public health emergency, followed by an executive order directing all higher education institutions to move to remote learning. Plaintiff contended that Defendant should have provided refunds for tuition, housing, and students fees. The Court concluded that Defendant was immune from the causes of action alleged under the New Jersey Emergency Health Powers Act (“NJEHPA”). The Court ruled that the transition to all-remote learning was related to a declared public health emergency and thus shielded Defendant from liability. The Court noted that the NJEHPA permitted the Governor to declare a public health emergency under certain conditions and afforded immunity to public entities for "an injury caused by any act or omission in connection with a public health emergency." Id. at *4. The Court thus found that Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed with prejudice, and it granted Defendant’s motion. Rocchio, et al. v. Rutgers, The State University Of New Jersey, Case No. 20-MID-L-3039 (N.J. App. Div. Oct. 27, 2021). Plaintiffs, a group of university students, filed a class action alleging claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment in connection with Defendant’s move to remote online education during the COVID-19 pandemic without providing any tuition refunds. The parties ultimately settled their claims, and the Court granted preliminary settlement approval. The Court found that the settlement agreement was fair, reasonable, and adequate, within the range of possible approval, and in the best interested of the settlement class members. The Court further determined that the settlement agreement substantially fulfilled the purposes of the class action and provided substantial relief to the members of the settlement class without risk, burdens, costs, or delay associated with continued litigation. Id . at 2-3. The Court ruled that the agreement: (i) was a result of arm’s length negotiations between experienced attorneys; (ii) was sufficient to warrant notice of the settlement and the final approval hearing to the settlement class; (iii) met all requirements of the applicable laws; (iv) and was not a finding of liability or a finding of validity to any claims asserted. Id . at 3. The Court further held that the settlement class met the Rule 23 requirements and it approved the notice to class members. For these reasons, the Court granted the motion for preliminary settlement approval. (xii) New York Chester County Employees Retirement Fund, et al. v. Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, 2021 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2713 (N.Y. App. Div. April 29, 2021). Plaintiffs filed a class action alleging that Defendant misled investors about the success of trials for a new medication to treat heart disease in violation of the Securities Act of 1933. The trial court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss. On appeal, the New York Appellate Division affirmed the trial court’s ruling. The Appellate Division determined that Defendants failed to “refute Plaintiff’s factual allegations and conclusively establish a defense to the asserted claims as a matter of law . . . Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged causes of action based on § § 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Law.” Id. at *2. The