Rutgers Class Action Complaint
Rutgers Class Action Complaint
Rutgers Class Action Complaint
(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)
Charles J. Kocher, Esq. & Matthew A. Luber, Esq.
McOmber McOmber & Luber, P.C.
39 E. Main Street, Marlton, NJ 08053, 856-985-9800
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
1 U.S. Government 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1X 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4X
of Business In This State
2 U.S. Government X4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State
Defendants.
-1-
Case 1:22-cv-02134 Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 3 of 44 PageID: 3
educational ranking organizations such as U.S. News & World Report and the
Financial Times.
3. Specifically, Rutgers intentionally reported false data and made
misleading claims in its marketing materials, falsely asserting that unemployed
students were purported gainfully employed in full-time MBA-level jobs with a
third-party company. The fraud worked. In 2018, the very first year of the scheme,
Rutgers was suddenly propelled to, among other things, the “No. 1” business school
in the Northeast region of the United States. But Rutgers Business School was
undeserving of its high rankings, having obtained this and other ranking positions
through deceit. As a result of Rutgers’ fraudulent and deceptive business practices,
its students paid a premium tuition but received an education less than and different
from what they expected given the tainted rankings. Plaintiff and the Class
members would not have enrolled and paid this premium but for Rutgers’ deceit.
Rutgers was unjustly enriched through its retention of tuition premiums paid by
Plaintiff and Class members.
4. But for Defendant Rutgers Business School’s high rankings as set forth
below, Plaintiff would have selected a different program. If Defendant Rutgers
Business School had not received these high rankings, Plaintiff would have not
agreed to pay Defendants’ premium per credit rate of tuition.
5. Rutgers must pay restitution for reporting misleading and false data to the
educational ranking organizations.
II. PARTIES AND JURISDICTION
6. Plaintiff Lorenzo Budet (“Plaintiff”) is a resident of Atlantic City, New
Jersey. Plaintiff is a graduate student at Rutgers in its Supply Chain Management
MBA program beginning in September 2019. See
https://www.business.rutgers.edu/part-time-mba/supply-chain-management (last
visited April 12, 2022) (claiming Rutgers Business School is a “Top 10 MBA
-2-
Case 1:22-cv-02134 Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 4 of 44 PageID: 4
1
https://www.business.rutgers.edu/about-rbs/at-a-glance (last visited April 11, 2022).
2
http://catalogs.rutgers.edu/generated/nwk-ug_1820/pg418.html (last visited April 11, 2022).
-3-
Case 1:22-cv-02134 Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 5 of 44 PageID: 5
-4-
Case 1:22-cv-02134 Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 6 of 44 PageID: 6
19. Instead of telling the truth to prospective and current students, Defendants
continue to make the claim that virtually all of its graduates are gainfully employed.
20. As a result, students chose to attend Rutgers based on these false
representations and manipulated MBA and other masters programs ranking
statistics.
21. For Defendants, ensuring each graduate student received a meaningful
education is of little import. Their focal point is “rankings,” “employment rates,”
and other crucial “statistics” that keep students flocking to Defendant Rutgers under
the guise that it will, or could, land them a highly coveted, highly paid job. See,
e.g., https://www.business.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/documents/factsheet-mba-
full-time.pdf (last visited April 12, 2022) (“Ranked as the #1 Public Business
School for MBA Career Services in the Northeast (Financial Times, 2021) , we help
MBA students become competitive candidates so that they can secure MBA career
opportunities.”).
22. Worse, students are heavily influenced by and rely upon Defendant
Rutgers’ ranking/statistics, not only when choosing one institution over another, but
when making the decision to take out loans to pay for higher education in the first
instance.
23. Staggering debt coupled with long odds of landing a high paying job are a
recipe for economic disaster; indeed, many economists predict another recession
due to the trillions of dollars in unpaid student-loan debt.
24. But none of that matters to Defendants, so long as the Rutgers “ranks”
higher than its competitors and the perks of working in higher education remain.
25. For example, for U.S. News, “[t]he Best Graduate Schools rankings in are
based on two types of data: expert opinion about program excellence and statistical
indicators that measure the quality of a school’s faculty, research and students.” See
https://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-schools/articles/how-us-news-
-5-
Case 1:22-cv-02134 Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 7 of 44 PageID: 7
-6-
Case 1:22-cv-02134 Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 8 of 44 PageID: 8
34. U.S. News ranked 134 business schools that provided enough data on their
full-time MBA programs and had large enough 2021 graduating classes seeking
employment for valid comparisons.3
35. A significant factor is “placement success,” which includes three ranking
indicators on employment and earnings that in total contribute 35% to each school’s
overall rank.
36. U.S. News uses the MBA Career Services & Employer Alliance (“CSEA”)
Standards for Reporting Employment Statistics as the basis for defining how MBA
programs should report full-time MBA employment statistics and other career
information, including starting base salaries, signing bonuses, and what proportion
of MBA graduates have jobs at graduation and three months after. See
https://www.mbacsea.org/standards (last visited on April 12, 2022).
37. Defendant Rutgers is a member of the MBA CSEA. Each year the MBA
CSEA releases Standards for Reporting Employment Statistics to “ensure peer
schools, prospective students and the media have accurate and comparable
employment information from graduate business schools.” Specifically:
3
The specific indicators can be found here. https://www.usnews.com/education/best-graduate-
schools/articles/business-schools-methodology (last visited on April 12, 2022).
-7-
Case 1:22-cv-02134 Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 9 of 44 PageID: 9
https://www.mbacsea.org/Files/MBA%20CSEA%20Standards%20Edition%20VI.
pdf
38. To ensure comparable data, MBA CSEA maintains two reporting dates for
job offers and job acceptances, at graduation and at three months after graduation.
Prospective students and the general public view at graduation as a “normal”
reporting mark, and three months after graduation serves to give all schools equal
time post-graduation to report data.
39. When reporting, Defendant Rutgers was “to develop a table or histogram
indicating the number and percent of job seeking full-time graduates who had (1)
received their first offer by graduation, (2) received their first offer after graduation
-8-
Case 1:22-cv-02134 Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 10 of 44 PageID: 10
and by three months after graduation, and (3) did not receive offer by three months
after graduation.” Specifically:
40. MBA CSEA provides specific guidelines for each criterion. For example,
a “job offer is a valid offer for a specific position… It should however, be MBA-
level work, as noted in instruction 2 for Table 1.A. It does not include verbal
speculation or suggestions involving possible or potential offers for unidentified
positions.” Furthermore, an “information source may include an employer, a parent,
your personal knowledge, or other reliable sources. The career office should
document in an email communication or the Career Services office’s tracking
system the information on the offer sourced from the graduate, parent, employer or
other source stated above, and should include the date of the offer or accepted offer
and the date the career office received the information.”
41. MBA CSEA also sets forth a reporting deadline: “Based upon all
information received as of one month past your three month post-graduation date,
develop a table or histogram indicating the number and percent of job seeking full-
time graduates who had: a. Accepted a job by graduation b. Accepted a job after
graduation and by three months after graduation, and c. Did not accept a job by
three months after graduation 2. A job acceptance occurs when a graduate has
notified an employer that he or she has accepted a valid offer for a specific position.
-9-
Case 1:22-cv-02134 Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 11 of 44 PageID: 11
The number of graduates in these three categories must equal the number of Total
Graduates Seeking Employment (from Table 1.A). Similarly, the denominator when
calculating the percent within each of the three categories is the Total Graduates
Seeking Employment. This information demonstrates when graduates actually had
a job that was acceptable to them.”
42. Furthermore, MBA CSEA tracks “Salary/compensation data pertains only
to job acceptances received by three months after graduation.”
43. The data should not include “positions accepted later than three months
post-graduation” and “salary information for graduates who were company-
sponsored or already employed, i.e., who had not accepted a new employment offer
(those graduates should have been included in the Not Seeking Employment
category on Table 1.A).”
44. Using these industry standards has helped U.S. News ensure prospective
students have accurate and comparable employment information for each school.
45. These statistics are a significant portion of the ranking: “There are two
distinct indicators on employment rates for graduates of full-time MBA
programs: employment rates at graduation (0.07) and employment rates three
months after graduation (0.14). In total, employment factors comprise 21% of each
school’s rank.”
46. In fact, as Assistant Dean and Director Dean R. Vera recently discussed,
the “employability” statistics are critical to the “survival” of the business school:
-10-
Case 1:22-cv-02134 Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 12 of 44 PageID: 12
-11-
Case 1:22-cv-02134 Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 13 of 44 PageID: 13
leading to more students enrolling in its program, more national accolades, and
more funding.
48. Compounding the problem, there is no place where prospective students
can find Rutgers’ “real” employment numbers. Rutgers supplies the same dubious
statistics to the Financial Times, Bloomberg Business Week, and other various news
outlets.
49. Without informing publications, potential students, or parents, Rutgers
hired unemployed MBA students and placed them into token permanent positions
directly with the university.
50. Worse, to mask the scheme, Defendants purported to hire the students via
the temporary employment agency Adecco.
51. Defendants also utilized more than $400,000 from the university
endowment to fund the sham positions and to issue a kickback to Adecco for
engaging in the scheme:
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
REDACTED
-12-
Case 1:22-cv-02134 Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 14 of 44 PageID: 14
graduates when reporting their hiring and employment statistics. The scheme was
organized, deliberate, and unequivocal.
54. On June 5, 2018, a meeting was scheduled with Assistant Dean Dean R.
Vera and Dan Stoll, Associate Director of Communications and Marketing, among
others, to initiate the scheme to manipulate employment data in order to improve
the business school’s ranking.
55. After the meeting, Assistant Dean Dean R. Vera, sent around the resumes
for the Rutgers Business School MBA Marketing students who had not yet secured
employment.
56. The very next day, Assistant Dean Dean R. Vera followed up stating, “Hi
Dan, Attached please find a Resume Packet with candidates whom I believe may
meet your hiring needs. Should you want to discuss any of these candidates, do not
hesitate to contact me.”
57. On June 14, 2018, Manish Kumar, Former Rutgers Business School
Associate Dean of Finance and Administration, followed up, stating: “Hi Dan, Have
you identified the two students? If so please let us know so that we can move with
temp hiring process. Dean- By what date students should be employed by?”
58. Assistant Dean Dean R. Vera responded, cc’ing Dean Lei, writing: “The
90th day after Commencement is August 16th. Students must have accepted an offer,
whether verbally or in writing, on or before this date.”
59. On June 20, 2018, Assistant Dean Dean R. Vera continued the scheme to
hire unemployed RBS students via Adecco by emailing Sharon Lydon, Former
Associate Dean of the MBA Program, stating, “Hi Sharon, Would you please share
few marketing MBA student’s resumes with Gino. He is looking to hire 2 and is
approved by Dean Lei.”
60. The next day, Sharon Lydon responded to Dan Stoll to ensure that there is
coordination between the departments and so that departments do not interview
-13-
Case 1:22-cv-02134 Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 15 of 44 PageID: 15
students who have already been successfully placed in a token position via the
illegal scheme.
61. Thereafter, Eugene “Gino” Gentile, Director of the Office of Career
Management, interviewed two unemployed MBA students for the two approved
positions. However, both interviews were unsuccessful. The Director opined that
the one of the unemployed MBA students “has not responded to 2 voicemails
requesting an interview. Perhaps this is why this candidate is unemployed.”
Students “A” and “B”
62. Nevertheless, after the unsuccessful interviews, the two approved positions
were transferred to James King, Senior Director of the Office of Career
Management, under the agreement the Adecco temp hires would report to the Senior
Director of the Office of Career Management.
63. On August 2, 2018, James King confirmed that the Office of Career
Management has conducted interviews and extended offers to two students.
64. On August 8, 2018, James King confirmed that Student A and Student B
accepted the positions via Adecco. Student A and Student B would be paid thirty-
five dollars an hour and work forty hours a week for the department. James King
then asked Plaintiff to “Please proceed with Adecco so we can get the offers to them
this week. Planned start date is 8/20. Thank you for your assistance.”
65. On August 9, 2018, Defendant Rutgers and Adecco entered into a
contractual agreement for the employment of Student A and Student B, and Plaintiff
submitted Statements of Work concerning their employment.
66. The scope of assignment was to work directly for Defendant Rutgers
Business School itself in a sham position well-below the criteria for an MBA
student:
-14-
Case 1:22-cv-02134 Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 16 of 44 PageID: 16
-15-
Case 1:22-cv-02134 Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 17 of 44 PageID: 17
hire the two FT MBA marketing students? Please let me know which students you
plan to hire. I will inform Jim King and Dean. They are hiring two students also and
would like you to have to first choice. Jim will complete his interviews today and
then make his selection by the end of the day today. I understand that he would like
to give you the first choice.” Dan Stoll responded, “We are only looking to hire one
MBA student, Krunal. We can start the hiring process.”
71. On August 9, 2018, Student C accepted the position. On August 20, 2018,
Adecco extended a contract to Student C.
72. On August 22, 2018, Dan Stoll confirmed that Student C accepted his
contract with Adecco and begins employment Monday, August 27, 2018.
Student D
73. On July 12, 2018, Department Administrator Cindy McDermott-Hicks, at
the request of Manish Kumar, reached out to Sharon Lydon concerning another
employment opportunity within the business school for an unemployed MBA
student.
74. Manish Kumar saw the job opening as another opportunity for Defendant
Rutgers to manipulate their employment data by counting another unemployed
MBA student as employed, thereby improving Defendant Rutgers ‘ranking.’ That
same day, Sharon Lydon responded, attaching the resumes of unemployed MBA
students.
75. On July 13, 2018, McDermott-Hicks identified three MBA candidates to
interview, and Defendant began the onboarding process with Adecco. A pay rate of
thirty-five dollars and six-month duration of the aforementioned position.
76. On July 20, 2018, McDermott-Hicks informed Manish Kumar that they
interviewed Student D and Student E for the position. McDermott-Hicks explained
that “both are significantly overqualified for this position. It would be my
recommendation we immediately handle with OT and post for someone more suited
-16-
Case 1:22-cv-02134 Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 18 of 44 PageID: 18
-17-
Case 1:22-cv-02134 Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 19 of 44 PageID: 19
August 22, 2018, Student E accepted his contract with Adecco and was able to begin
on working on Monday, August 27, 2018.
Student F
86. On Aug 8, 2018, Manish Kumar emailed Tavy Ronen, Director of
Business of Fashion Programs, Sharon Lydon, and James King to inform them that
Tavy Ronen’s program coordinator has resigned. Manish Kumar continues that
Dean Lei “has approved a temp to perm hire through Adecco until FT position can
be posted and hired… Jim/Sharon- can you please send some resumes to Tavy to
select and interview from?”
87. The next day, on August 9, 2018, Tavy Ronen informed via email with
subject line, FW: Found an MBA through Adecco as suggested- please can you
bring her on?, stating that she had interviewed and selected Student F for the
program coordinator position at forty hours per week via Adecco. Tavy continues,
“I did everything in my power to be as swift as possible, given Sharon’s pressing
ratio deadline (tomorrow).”
88. The rationale for the deadline is clear: Defendants wanted to be able count
another unemployed MBA student as employed in their illegal scheme to
manipulate the employment data and improve their rankings.
89. Not surprisingly, in the same year that Defendants hatched the fraudulent
scheme, Defendant Rutgers published an article titled “Financial Times ranks
Rutgers Business School No. 1 public business school in Northeast U.S.” on its
website.4
90. On December 19, 2018, Defendant Rutgers states, “the Financial
Times released a comprehensive overall ranking of business schools in 2018 placing
4
https://www.business.rutgers.edu/news/financial-times-ranks-rutgers-business-school-no-1-public-
business-school-northeast-us (last visited March 25, 2022).
-18-
Case 1:22-cv-02134 Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 20 of 44 PageID: 20
Rutgers Business School No. 24 among business schools in the Americas and No.
1 among public business schools in the Northeast U.S.”
91. In the aforementioned article, Dean Lei, Dean of Rutgers Business School,
purports the schools success as follows, “we are working hard to stay ahead of the
trends in business education, from our focus on constantly innovating our
curriculum in collaboration with alumni and corporate partners in our Executive
MBA and Full-Time MBA programs to our efforts to extend the currency of a
Rutgers Business School degree with lifelong learning through our Executive
Education programs, we are a partner with our students and alumni their entire
lives.”
92. Dean Lei, however, failed to mention the true reason for the improved
rankings – data manipulation in violation of the law.
93. By unlawfully bolstering its employment data, Defendant Rutgers creates
an impression of bountiful employment opportunity that does not exist, thereby
misleading Defendants’ alumni, students, and prospective students.
94. Defendant Rutgers excessively boast their fraudulently enhanced ranking
via their marketing materials. Defendants utilize their ranking heavily to induce
students to attend the University.
95. Defendant RBS’s official website even has its own stats & rankings page.
Defendant RBS flaunt its achievements and accolades in the rankings, stating,
“Rutgers Business School- Newark and New Brunswick is recognized as one of the
top three public business schools among Big Ten (BTAA) business schools and is
the highest-ranked public business school in the Northeast U.S.” 5
The applicable
rankings for Defendant Rutgers Business School are listed as follows:
5
https://www.business.rutgers.edu/about-rbs/ranking (last visited March 25, 2022)
-19-
Case 1:22-cv-02134 Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 21 of 44 PageID: 21
2017
-20-
Case 1:22-cv-02134 Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 22 of 44 PageID: 22
2018
-21-
Case 1:22-cv-02134 Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 23 of 44 PageID: 23
2019:
-22-
Case 1:22-cv-02134 Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 24 of 44 PageID: 24
2020
-23-
Case 1:22-cv-02134 Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 25 of 44 PageID: 25
2021
-24-
Case 1:22-cv-02134 Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 26 of 44 PageID: 26
#20 World’s Top 100 Business Schools for Executive MBA in the U.S. (#4
in the Big Ten) Financial Times
#21 Public Business School in the U.S. - Financial Times
#21 Career Progress worldwide (Executive MBA) - Financial Times
#22 Public Business School for MBA Career Services in the World -
Financial Times
#22 Executive MBA program in the U.S. - Poets & Quants
#24 Best MBA Program for Entrepreneurship globally (#4 in the Big 10) -
Poets & Quants
#25 Salary Increase (%) worldwide (Executive MBA) - Financial Times
#29 Top Business School in the U.S. - Eduniversal
#36 Top University for Business & Economics in the U.S. (Rutgers – New
Brunswick) - Times Higher Education
#37 Best Full-Time MBA Programs of 2021 - Fortune
#86 Public Business School in the World - Financial Times
#88 World’s Top 100 Business Schools for Executive MBA - Financial
Times
2022
-25-
Case 1:22-cv-02134 Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 27 of 44 PageID: 27
-26-
Case 1:22-cv-02134 Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 28 of 44 PageID: 28
Lei
98. That same day, Assistant Dean Dean R. Vera responds, stating, “Thank
you, Lei. Regarding the Adecco hires, it is my understanding that these are contract
positions with the potential of leading to a full-time position. (Please check with
Manish.) If that is the case, the Standards state that we count them as employed.”
99. Manish Kumar confirms, stating, “Attached is a sample contract. At
Rutgers to hire for a FT position we have to go through open search and ROCS. Of
course, if theses Adecco employee perform well, RBS will give them full
consideration during search process which could potentially lead to their hire.” To
which, Assistant Dean Dean R. Vera responds, “Thank you for the clarification,
Manish.”
100. Defendants counted the internal MBA students (via Adecco) as employed
in order to manipulate employment data and improve their rankings.
101. To make matter worse, Defendants counted the Adecco hires as employed
on August 10, 2018, even though the unemployed MBA students were not extended
offers via Adecco until August 14, 2018 and August 20, 2018. This too was a false
and misleading representation.
102. The false and misleading data has artificially boosted Defendant Rutgers’s
rankings. The submission includes three years’ worth of information. Thus, the
data submitted in 2018, impacts the rankings for 2019, 2020, and 2021. Dean Lei
recently reported that Rutgers once again moved up in the rankings:
-27-
Case 1:22-cv-02134 Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 29 of 44 PageID: 29
-28-
Case 1:22-cv-02134 Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 30 of 44 PageID: 30
-29-
Case 1:22-cv-02134 Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 31 of 44 PageID: 31
105. The professors also discuss the data manipulation and how it could go a
long way in swaying the rankings:
-30-
Case 1:22-cv-02134 Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 32 of 44 PageID: 32
-31-
Case 1:22-cv-02134 Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 33 of 44 PageID: 33
Adequacy
111. Plaintiff and her counsel are adequate representatives of the interests of the
putative Class. Plaintiff is a student at Rutgers who is being charged tuition and
fees as part of his enrollment. He contends that Rutgers has misrepresented its
employability statistics to students and third-party entities that ranked Rutgers as a
top business school. According to Defendants’ website, “Ranked as the #1 Public
Business School for MBA Career Services in the Northeast (Financial Times, 2021),
we help MBA students become competitive candidates so that they can secure MBA
career opportunities.”
https://www.business.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/documents/factsheet-mba-full-
time.pdf (last visited April 12, 2022). And the rankings above were tainted by
Defendants’ fraudulent and deceptive business practices in connection with their
reporting to the third-parties that ranked Rutgers Business School.
112. Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in class action litigation to
litigate and represent the interests of Plaintiff, the Class Representative, and the
Class.
Typicality
113. Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims being raised on behalf of the
absent Class members. Plaintiff and the Class members have been injured by the
same wrongful practices of Rutgers. Plaintiff’s claims arise from the same practices
and conduct that give rise to the claims of all Class members and are based on the
same legal theories.
Superiority
114. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and
efficient adjudication of the controversy. Here, classwide litigation is superior to
individually litigating and adjudicating the dispute, because given the size of the
individual Class member’s claims and the expense of litigating those claims, few,
-32-
Case 1:22-cv-02134 Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 34 of 44 PageID: 34
if any, Class members could afford to or would seek legal redress individually for
the wrongs Defendants committed against them and absent Class members have no
substantial interest in individually controlling the prosecution of individual actions.
This action will also promote an orderly and expeditious administration and
adjudication of the proposed Class claims, economies of time, effort and resources
will be fostered, and uniformity of decisions will be insured. Without a class action,
Class members will continue to suffer damages, and Rutgers’ violations of law will
proceed without remedy while Defendants continue to reap and retain the proceeds
of the wrongful conduct. Plaintiff is not aware of any difficulty that would be
encountered in the management of this litigation which would preclude class
certification.
115. A class action is also superior to other available methods for the fair and
efficient adjudication of the controversy because it eliminates the prospect of
inconsistent rulings that would unsettle the legal obligations or expectations of
Defendant, Plaintiff, and Class members.
116. Because the damages suffered by each individual class member may be
relatively small, the expense and burden of individual litigation would make it very
difficult or impossible for individual class members to redress the wrongs done to
each of them individually, so that the prosecution of specific actions and the burden
imposed on the judicial system by individual litigation by the Class would be
significant, making class adjudication the superior option.
117. The conduct of the action as a class action presents far fewer management
difficulties, far better conserves judicial resources and the parties’ resources, and
far more effectively protects the rights of each class member than would piecemeal
litigation. Compared to the expense, burdens, inconsistencies, economic
infeasibility, and inefficiencies of individualized litigation, any challenge of
managing the action as a class action is substantially outweighed by the benefits to
-33-
Case 1:22-cv-02134 Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 35 of 44 PageID: 35
the legitimate interests of the parties, the Court, and the public of class treatment,
making class adjudication superior to other alternatives.
Commonality and Predominance
118. Plaintiff’s Complaint raises questions of fact or law common to the class
that predominate over questions affecting only individual class members. Among
these predominating common questions are:
a. Whether the relationship between Defendant and Plaintiff and
members of the Class is contractual;
b. Whether Rutgers breached its educational contract with Plaintiff and
members of the proposed Class;
c. Whether Plaintiff and Class members have been harmed and the proper
measure of relief;
d. Whether Plaintiff and Class members are entitled to an award of
attorneys’ fees and expenses; and
e. Whether Plaintiff and Class members are entitled to declaratory and/or
equitable relief, and if so, the nature of such relief.
f. Whether Defendants were unjustly enriched by retaining tuition and
mandatory fee and other expense payments when Plaintiff and Class members were
duped into paying premium prices for discount degrees.
119. In the event that the Court were to find the proposed class definition
inadequate in any way, Plaintiff respectfully prays for certification of any other
alternative, narrower class definition or for the certification of subclasses, as
appropriate.
-34-
Case 1:22-cv-02134 Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 36 of 44 PageID: 36
COUNT I
New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act
(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class Against All Defendants)
120. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all previous allegations
as though set forth in full herein.
121. The term “merchandise” under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act
includes “goods” and “services or anything offered, directly or indirectly to the
public for sale.” N.J.S.A. 56:80-1(c).
122. Defendants are in the business of marketing and delivering education
services and degrees to the general public.
123. As students, Plaintiff and the Class members are consumers of educational
services.
124. The educational services and degrees offered by Rutgers are
“merchandise” under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.
125. Rutgers, an educational institution, is subject to the same laws, both
statutory and common law, that govern other purveyors of goods and services in
New Jersey.
126. Section 56:8-2 of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act provides that:
The act, use or employment by any person of any
unconscionable commercial practice, deception, fraud,
false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or the
knowing, concealment, suppression, or omission of any
material fact with intent that others rely upon such
concealment, suppression or omission, in connection with
the sale or advertisement of any merchandise or real estate,
or with the subsequent performance of such person as
aforesaid, whether or not any person has in fact been
misled, deceived or damaged thereby, is declared to be an
unlawful practice ….
N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.
-35-
Case 1:22-cv-02134 Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 37 of 44 PageID: 37
127. Rutgers violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act by engaging in an
“unconscionable commercial practice,” “deception,” “fraud,” “false pretense,”
“false promise,” and “misrepresentation” by deceptively reporting admissions data
to increase its rankings.
128. In addition, if Rutgers had questions about this practice of hiring students
through a temp agency and counting them as employed for purposes of
employability statistics it should have asked the third-party ranking entities. But it
did not, and thereby it knowingly concealed and omitted these material facts from
the ranking entities, such as U.S. News and World Report, among others.
129. Rutgers intended that the third-party ranking organizations would rely on
its employability statistics that it deceptively reported.
130. Rutgers misrepresented to U.S. News and World Report, and other
educational ranking organizations, that its programs possessed certain
characteristics, qualifications, requirements, benefits, and levels of attainment that
were known not to actually exist at the time reported.
131. At all relevant times, Rutgers knew that its Business School MBA and
masters programs’ rankings were based upon misreported data and deceptive
reporting practices it employed.
132. Rutgers’s fraudulent misrepresentations, along with its known omissions,
deceived or had the tendency to deceive a substantial segment of its student body,
including Plaintiff.
133. Plaintiff and Class members suffered an ascertainable loss in connection
with the payment of tuition, fees and educational expenses to Rutgers.
134. Rutgers knew that its rankings of the Rutgers Business School provided
significant leverage to enable the school to increase enrollment in its Business
School.
-36-
Case 1:22-cv-02134 Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 38 of 44 PageID: 38
135. Rutgers knew that its failure to achieve high rankings was likely to make
a difference in the purchasing decisions of prospective applicants to the Rutgers
Business School.
136. But for Rutgers’ deceptive reporting of admissions data that increased its
rankings, Plaintiff and Class members would not have enrolled at Rutgers and paid
its premium tuition and fees.
137. Plaintiff and Class members, despite paying a premium tuition, received
an education less than and different from what they expected based on Rutgers’
false statistics and rankings.
138. Rutgers’ violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, as described
herein, have directly caused Plaintiff and the Class members to have suffered
ascertainable loss for damages measured by the incremental difference the tuition
and fees Rutgers actually charged to Plaintiff and the amount of tuition and fees
they would have paid had they enrolled in other unranked or lower ranked programs.
139. Rutgers’ violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, as described
herein, have directly caused Plaintiff and the Class members to have suffered
ascertainable loss for damages in the nature of costs for books and other fees and
educational expenses.
140. As a proximate result of Rutgers’ New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act
violations, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff and Class members for compensatory,
consequential, punitive, and treble damages.
141. As a proximate result of Rutgers’ New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act
violations, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff and Class members for reasonable
attorneys’ fees and costs of this litigation.
-37-
Case 1:22-cv-02134 Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 39 of 44 PageID: 39
COUNT II
Breach of Contract
(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class Against All Defendants)
142. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all previous allegations
as though set forth in full herein.
143. By the act of matriculation, together with payment of required fees, a
contract between Plaintiff and Class members, on the one hand, and Defendants, on
the other hand, was created, in addition to any enrollment contract that may have
existed between Defendants and the Plaintiff.
144. The law recognizes that there is an educational contractual relationship
between student and college/university.
145. Plaintiff accepted Rutgers’ offer to education leading to a degree and
entered into an agreement to attend Rutgers Business School in exchange for
payment of agreed upon tuition and fees.
146. Rutgers agreed to provide Plaintiff with the necessary course work,
instruction and training, in a specified time frame, whereby Plaintiff would be
eligible to earn certification for a degree upon successful completion of the required
courses.
147. Plaintiff and Class members performed their obligations under the
contract.
148. Rutgers breached the educational agreement with Plaintiff and each Class
member by misreporting data to educational ranking organizations.
149. Rutgers breached its educational agreement with each Plaintiff and
members of the Class by representing to U.S. News and World Report and the
Financial Times, among others, that its programs possessed certain characteristics,
qualifications, requirements, benefits and levels of attainment that were known not
to actually existed at the time of reporting.
-38-
Case 1:22-cv-02134 Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 40 of 44 PageID: 40
150. Plaintiff and the Class members reasonably relied upon the fact that
Rutgers would truthfully and accurately submit information and critical data to U.S.
News and World Report and other organizations that ranked U.S. programs.
151. Plaintiff and the Class members had no means of knowing or learning that
Rutgers was engaged in misreporting of data to educational ranking organizations.
152. If Plaintiff and/or Class members had knowledge of Rutgers’ misreporting
of data and deceptive practices described herein, they would not have applied for
admission or agreed to pay Rutgers’ premiums for tuition, fees, and costs.
153. By reason of Rutgers’ above-described breaches of the educational
agreement, Plaintiff and Class members have been damaged and sustained
pecuniary injury.
154. By reason of Rutgers’ above-described breaches of the educational
agreement, Plaintiff and Class members have sustained damages for the loss of the
benefit of the bargain, equal to what Plaintiff and the Class members would have
received, if the representations to the educational ranking organizations had been
true.
155. By reason of Rutgers’ above-described breaches of the educational
agreement, Plaintiff and Class members have suffered out-of-pocket damages for
the incremental difference between the tuition and fees Rutgers actually charged to
Plaintiff and Class members, and the amount of tuition and fees they would have
paid had they enrolled in other unranked programs.
156. By reason of Rutgers’ above-described breaches of the educational
agreement, Plaintiff and Class members have suffered consequential damages in the
nature of books, educational expenses, application fees, transaction fees, and
interest charged in connection with student loans, including Student Fees,
Technology Fees, PIRG Fees, School Fees. See, e.g.,
https://www.business.rutgers.edu/part-time-mba/tuition (last visited April 12,
-39-
Case 1:22-cv-02134 Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 41 of 44 PageID: 41
2022).
157. As a proximate result of Rutgers’ breaches of the education agreement,
Defendants are liable to Plaintiff and Class members for reasonable attorneys’ fees
and costs of this litigation.
COUNT III
Unjust Enrichment
(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class Against All Defendants)
158. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all previous allegations
as though set forth in full herein.
159. At all relevant times, Rutgers knew that the misreporting of critical data to
educational ranking organizations was necessary for it to improve and maintain its
rankings of Rutgers Business School.
160. Rutgers knew that its rankings provided significant leverage to enable the
school to increase tuition rates and fees for its program offerings.
161. Rutgers knew that its failure to achieve high rankings, as described above,
was likely to make a difference in the purchasing decisions of prospective applicants
to Rutgers’ MBA and masters programs at Rutgers Business School.
162. Plaintiff and the Class members paid a premium for tuition and other fees
to attend Rutgers Business School and did not receive what they bargained for.
163. Rutgers’ actions, conduct and omissions, as described herein, were
immoral, unethical, unjust, and unscrupulous.
164. As a result of the foregoing, Defendants were enriched at Plaintiff and the
Class members’ expense, by Rutgers’ wrongful conduct and actions, and
accordingly, it would be inequitable to permit Defendants to retain all of the benefits
Plaintiff and Class members conferred on Defendants the form of tuition and fees
paid.
165. Plaintiff and Class members are entitled to and hereby pray for an order of
-40-
Case 1:22-cv-02134 Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 42 of 44 PageID: 42
restitution as redress for Defendants’ unjust enrichment. Plaintiff prays for the
establishment of a Court-ordered and supervised common fund from which the
claims of affected Class members may be paid and the attorneys’ fees and costs of
suit expended by class counsel, as approved by the Court, may be awarded and
reimbursed.
166. Defendants continues to falsely represent on its web site that it offers
campus facilities with significant benefit and value to students and continue to
falsely represent the value of their in-person on-campus classroom instruction. See
https://www.business.rutgers.edu/news/university-responds-lawsuit-against-
rutgers-business-school;
https://www.business.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/documents/factsheet-mba-full-
time.pdf (last visited April 12, 2022). Unless restrained by way of injunctive relief,
Defendants’ conduct is reasonably likely to lead to irreparable harm. Plaintiff and
Class members are entitled to and hereby pray for injunctive relief to enjoin
Defendants’ continued conduct.
167. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff and Class members have sustained
damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
respectfully requests that the Court finds against Defendant as follows:
1. An order certifying the action as a class action as defined herein,
appointing Plaintiff as Class representative, his counsel as Class counsel, and
directing that notice be disseminated to the absent Class members;
2. For judgment in favor of Plaintiff and Class members and against
Defendants on all counts and claims for relief;
3. For compensatory, consequential, general, and special damages and/or
restitution in an amount to be determined at trial;
-41-
Case 1:22-cv-02134 Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 43 of 44 PageID: 43
-42-
Case 1:22-cv-02134 Document 1 Filed 04/12/22 Page 44 of 44 PageID: 44
-43-