09-1-4394 Debra Dugan v. TGI Friday’s, Inc., Ernest Bozzi v. OSI Restaurant Partners, LLC N.J. Sup. Ct (Patterson, J.) (91 pp.) Because CFA class action jurisprudence rejects “price-inflation” theories, such as the theory presented by the Dugan plaintiffs, as incompatible with the CFA’s terms, the Dugan plaintiffs have not established predominance with respect to their CFA claims. Bozzi’s allegations focus primarily on a specific pricing practice. If the Bozzi class is redefined to include only customers who make that specific CFA claim, and the claim is limited accordingly, plaintiff Bozzi has met the requirements of Rule 4:32-1 and may attempt to prove that claim on behalf of the class. As to the TCCWNA claims in both appeals, plaintiffs have failed to satisfy the predominance requirement of Rule 4:32-1.
25-2-4362 Cynthia M. Blake v. Board of Review, Dept. of Labor, N.J. Super. App. Div. (Messano, P.J.A.D.) (13 pp.) Appellant resigned in anticipation of employment with a different employer. However, before she began work with the second employer, it withdrew the offer and appellant applied for unemployment benefits. The Appeal Tribunal disqualified appellant from receiving benefits because she left employment without good cause attributable to the work. N.J.S.A. 43:21-5(a). Appellant argued she was eligible for benefits pursuant to a 2015 amendment, which provides the disqualification “shall not apply to an individual who voluntarily leaves work with one employer to accept from another employer employment which commences not more than seven days after the individual leaves employment with the first employer, if the employment with the second employer has weekly hours or pay not less than the hours or pay of the employment of the first employer, except that if the individual gives notice to the first employer that the individual will leave employment on a specified date and the first employer terminates the individual before that date, the seven-day period will commence from the specified date.” [L. 2015, c. 41] The Board of Review affirmed, concluding the exception only applied if the employee “commences” work with the second employer. The court affirmed, concluding the plain language of the statute and relevant legislative history demonstrated the exception applied only if the employee started employment with the second employer and was subsequently terminated. (Approved for Publication)
