McOmber McOmber & Luber

Business & Employment Lawyers Red Bank & Marlton New Jersey

(732) 842-6500

Law 360

On April 12, 2022, Partners Charles J. Kocher and Matthew A. Luber  filed this consumer class action in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of their client and a proposed class of Rutgers Business School MBA and other master’s degree students to recover the premium tuition they paid for a high ranking business school when, in reality, Rutgers was allegedly reporting false and misleading data about its employability statistics after graduation to third-party ranking organizations, such as U.S. News and World Report and the Financial Times, in order to inflate the rankings.

This was a massive fraud on Rutgers’ prospective students. Rutgers was unjustly enriched through its retention of tuition premiums paid by Plaintiff and Class members.  A copy of the as-filed Class Action Complaint may be found below.

“Rutgers Business School allegedly reported misleading data to U.S. News and World Report, among other educational ranking organizations, to boost its rankings. But just as falsification of data is a violation of Rutgers’ own Academic Integrity Policy, Rutgers needs to be held accountable here under the law. This class action seeks to recover the premium tuition paid by Plaintiff and the proposed Class for Rutgers’ MBA and other master degree programs are given the tainted rankings.” – Partner Charles J. Kocher

Partners R. Armen McOmber and Peter D. Valenzano and Associate Lauren M. Hill successfully argued before the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division on behalf of Plaintiff Margaret Gathman, overturning the lower court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint on Summary Judgment.

The Complaint alleges that Defendant Care One Management LLC (“Defendant Care One”), terminated Gathman after she blew the whistle on Defendant Care One’s unlawful failure to return overpayments made by Medicare, Medicaid, and other entities and individuals. In January 2020, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The Trial Court granted Defendants’ Motion, determining that Gathman failed to establish a causal connection between her report about the refunds and her termination less than one week later.

Gathman appealed and the Appellate Division reversed. The Court determined that there were “genuine issues of material fact” which precluded summary judgment, and the Trial Court “should not have made credibility assessments of the proffered facts and applied those findings more favorably to defendants to find that Gathman did not establish a prima facie CEPA claim of retaliation.” Such issues of material fact included conflicts between the deposition testimony and a “sham affidavit” from Alberto Lugo, Defendant Care One’s former executive vice president, inconsistencies in the testimony of Defendant Care One Management, and the temporal proximity between Gathman’s report that she had returned $3 million in overpayments and her unlawful termination. Gathman’s case will be remanded to the Law Division, where it will be scheduled for trial.

“We are pleased that our client will get to see her day in court. It was certainly not lost on the Appellate Division that Alberto Lugo, executive vice president and general counsel of CareOne, literally denied knowing our client and the reason for her termination at his deposition, despite signing her termination letter, and then submitted a certification in support of summary judgment detailing the precise reason why she was terminated. Thankfully, the Appellate Division saw right through this ‘sham affidavit’ and acknowledged that issues of fact are best left to a jury.”  R. Armen McOmber, McOmber McOmber & Luber, P.C.

Partner Peter D. Valenzano and Associate Lauren M. Hill successfully argued before the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division on behalf of Plaintiff Tevin Welcome, overturning the lower court’s decision compelling arbitration of his discrimination and whistleblower retaliation claims.

After ten months and sixteen days of discovery including the filing of a dispositive motion, a motion for a protective order, the exchange of paper discovery, and the deposition of Plaintiff, Defendant Huffmaster Staffing, Inc., (“Defendant Huffmaster”) moved to compel arbitration of Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to an arbitration agreement buried within Plaintiff’s employment application. The Trial Court granted the Motion, rejecting Plaintiff’s argument that the company had waived the right to compel arbitration.

Welcome appealed. The Appellate Division reversed the trial court. “If arbitration is designed to be a faster and more efficient process, the delay in this case of nearly a year before the company took action to compel it represents a poor counter-example”, the panel said. “We ought not encourage and endorse such lateness where it could have been easily avoided by the company or its advocates more carefully checking its own files and forms.”

Accordingly, the Appellate Court determined Defendant Huffmaster had waived its right to enforce the arbitration agreement between the parties. Welcome’s case will be remanded to the Law Division, where it will be scheduled for trial.

“We are very pleased with the Court’s decision. The prompt delivery of the well-reasoned opinion will now allow our client to litigate his claims in the law division, where they have always belonged.” Peter D. Valenzano, Esq., McOmber McOmber & Luber, P.C.

Download Decision

Partners Christian V. McOmber and Peter D. Valenzano represent Mitchel Alboum in age discrimination and retaliation claim filed against Merck KGaA in Monmouth County, New Jersey. The complaint alleges that Alboum, a sixty-one (61) year old man and a seasoned and accomplished employee of Merck for 40 years was subject to intolerably hostile work on the basis of his age. In 2018, Merck hired two considerably younger managers, and for the first time in his four-decade career, Alboum was faced with poor performance reviews, a baseless performance improvement plan (PIP), and a hostile work environment.  

Alboum’s younger managers, Anthony Trebino and Kevin Stanton, littered Alboum’s performance reviews with offensive ageist commentary, belittled him, and refused to provide meaningful constructive feedback or assistance. They likewise withheld bonuses and pay increases until Alboum completed the baseless PIP. When Alboum complained about the discrimination, both verbally and in writing, his complaints fell on deaf ears. As a result, Alboum was forced to participate in a discriminatory and retaliatory performance improvement plan as a means of forcing him out of his long-held employment with Merck, all because of his age.  

The lawsuit, which was filed in Monmouth County Superior Court, alleges violations of, among other things, the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. Alboum seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. 

“This claim presents as a text-book claim of age discrimination. Rather than celebrate our client’s nearly forty years of dedicated service to the company, the Defendants have subjected him to an intolerably hostile work environment – all in an effort to force him from his job. As alleged, Defendants have deprived him of income, humiliated him with a baseless performance improvement plan, and targeted him with ageist comments.  We stand shoulder to shoulder with our client in standing up against this invidious discrimination.” Peter D. Valenzano, McOmber McOmber & Luber, P.C. 

Read the full story.

Matthew A. Luber, Esq. and R. Armen McOmber, Esq. successfully obtained a reversal in the NJ Appeals Court to reinstate client Andrew Poulos’s whistleblower claim against the State of New Jersey. Mr. Poulos alleges that he was subjected to retaliation after blowing the whistle on his superiors in the Medicaid Fraud Division. Specifically, Poulos claims he was immediately fired for reporting that his supervisors lied to the New Jersey Comptroller James Degnan about the status of “Operation Blue Claw” –  an extensive, multi-year investigation of Medicaid fraud in the Lakewood Community.

Matthew A. Luber is quoted in the article: “We are very pleased with the reversal as the thrust of our client’s case remains intact. We look forward to prosecuting this case and obtaining justice for our client,” Luber said. 

Read the Law360 Article

 

MML represents Cynthia Wisenfelder, a former client relations coordinator that was illegally terminated by The Matus Law Group. Ms. Wisenfelder claims that, after being exposed to Covid-19, she inquired about working remotely and quarantining. Callously, the Matus firm responded by attempting to not pay Ms. Wisenfelder during quarantine, falsely accusing her of resigning from her position, and initiating an effort to replace her with a new employee.  Ms. Wisenfelder then tested positive for the virus, and five days after her return from quarantine, her employment was terminated for bogus, pretextual reasons.

MML managing partner, Matthew A. Luber, is quoted in the article: “As alleged in the complaint, our client was punished for requesting basic benefits information and a reasonable accommodation pertaining to Covid-19. Such retaliatory conduct is reprehensible and Ms. Wisenfelder looks forward to her day in court.” 

Read the full story

Case Update (October 28, 2021):

On October 27, 2021, Partner Charles J. Kocher obtained final approval from a federal court to the $3.15 million class action settlement to Tastykake drivers, which will provide substantial class relief to nearly 300 class members in PA, NJ, and MD to resolve claims that they were unlawfully misclassified as independent contractors and incurred unlawful deductions from their pay.

The court noted that “Class counsel are qualified and experienced advocates in class litigation, including employment litigation, and demonstrated their skills….”

“Apart from resolving this class action, the settlement might serve as a warning to companies who may be improperly classifying their workers as independent contractors to avoid the benefits of wage laws.” – Charles Kocher, Esq. 

Click here to read the Opinion.  In the words of the Honorable Joshua D. Wolson, “The Court must decide whether the Parties have baked a settlement agreement that is as tasty as a Tastykake. They have.”

 

Class Settlement Alert (April 14, 2021)

Partner Charles J. Kocher secured a $3.15 million class-action settlement for Tastykake drivers in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Maryland, as well as on behalf of opt-in plaintiffs under the FLSA, to resolve allegations of Tastykake’s violations of federal and state wage and hour laws. According to the operative Complaint, Tastykake allegedly misclassified its delivery drivers as “independent contractors,” depriving them of overtime and other benefits of being employees and also subjecting them to improper pay deductions. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has granted preliminary approval of the settlement. Click here to read the order. McOmber, McOmber & Luber, P.C. and Saltz Mongeluzzi & Bendesky, P.C. were appointed as interim Class Counsel.

“Apart from resolving this class action, the settlement might serve as a warning to companies who may be improperly classifying their workers as independent contractors to avoid the benefits of wage laws.” – Charles Kocher – as featured in Law360 on April 12, 2021. 

If you believe that you may be the victim of a wage and hour violation please contact our team today.

Law360 features Matthew A. Luber, Esq. and R. Armen McOmber, Esq.’s successful appeal resulting in the reversal of summary judgment in a lawsuit against Cooper Health. The lawsuit alleges that the Plaintiff was terminated in retaliation for requesting an extension of her medical leave.

Law360: NJ Health System Must Face Ex-Worker’s Disability Bias Suit

Office Locations

Red Bank Office

Marlton Office

Newark Office

No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.

This website’s information does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice or form an attorney-client relationship. All content is for general information and may not constitute the most up-to-date legal information. You should consult with an attorney for advice on specific legal problems. Read the full Disclaimer here.

Free Consultation