ABA Secures Loan Forgiveness Status After 3-Year Battle
The American Bar Association has prevailed in its bid to be deemed an eligible employer under the Public Interest Loan Forgiveness program, and the decision could have broader implications for other organizations.
August 27, 2019 at 02:38 PM
4 minute read
The American Bar Association has come out ahead in its legal fight to ensure that all of its employees qualify for the federal government's Public Service Loan Forgiveness program.
The ABA has been battling the U.S. Department of Education in court since December 2016, when it filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia after several employees were informed by the servicer of their government-issued student loans that the ABA is not an eligible employer under the loan forgiveness program.
But the ABA said this week that the loan servicer has reversed course and sent letters to those borrowers stating that it had made an error and that the ABA is a qualified employer for the program. That decision paves the way for any ABA employee to have their federal loans forgiven after 10 years, provided they meet the many criteria laid out under the program.
It also could have implications beyond the ABA, with more lawyers and other public services workers in nontraditional settings becoming eligible for forgiveness. (It's unclear how many people are on track for public service loan forgiveness, though as of March 73,554 had applied for a loan discharge. That figure is expected to increase rapidly in the coming years.)
The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program allows borrowers to discharge their remaining federal loan balances after 10 years in qualified public service jobs and 10 years of payments on the loan, among other conditions. It was enacted in 2007 as a way to encourage borrowers to pursue public service careers, which often are less lucrative than those in the private sector.
"We are gratified that several affected employees have been notified their work with the American Bar Association qualifies as public service work under PSLF," ABA executive director Jack Rives said in a prepared statement.
The determination by FedLoan Servicing that the ABA employees in question qualify for loan forgiveness could have positive implications for other legal services organizations, according to Ropes & Gray partner Chong Park, who has been representing the ABA.
Two of the four name plaintiffs in the 2016 lawsuit are former ABA employees who worked on pro bono initiatives, while the remaining two worked for other nonprofit groups: The American Immigration Lawyers Association and Vietnam Veterans of America. Those employees have also had their loan payments credited toward their 10-year loan forgiveness, according to the FedLoan servicing letters, which indicates that the Education Department is taking a more inclusive approach to which employers qualify for forgiveness. Several employees of the ABA and those two other organizations that were not plaintiffs in the suit have also been told that they qualify for the program, Park said.
"I think this has broad consequences and ramifications for public interest employees across the nation," Park said in an interview Tuesday. "This basically affects private, nonprofit organizations that provide any of a list of qualifying services, which includes public interest law services, early childhood education and on and on."
The plaintiffs had already seen early success in court. The 2016 complaint argues the that Education Department unlawfully changed the criteria for qualified employment under the program partway through, leaving the plaintiffs—several of whom had initially been told their jobs qualified—out in the cold.
A federal judge largely agreed, issuing an opinion in February that the Education Department indeed had changed the criteria for forgiveness without notice midstream and must reconsider the applications of three of the four plaintiffs. (All four have now been told they are eligible, according to the ABA.)
The Education Department opted not to appeal that decision, issued by U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly of the District of Columbia.
Many questions remain about the wider Public Interest Loan Forgiveness program, however. The first cohort of borrowers became eligible to apply for forgiveness in 2018, but government figures show that only 1% of those who applied last year were approved. The approval rate was similarly low in the most recent data, released in March.
But experts have cautioned that approval rates should increase over time, as relatively few borrowers from the early groups took out the right type of loan to qualify for forgiveness and that accurate information about the program was scarce in its early days.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'What Is Certain Is Uncertainty': Patchwork Title IX Rules Face Expected Changes in Second Trump Administration
5 minute read'No Evidence'?: Big Law Firms Defend Academic Publishers in EDNY Antitrust Case
3 minute readLaw Firms Are Turning to Online Training Platforms as Apprenticeship Model Falters
'Substantive Deficiencies': Judge Grants Big Law Motion Dismissing Ivy League Price-Fixing Claims
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Read the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome', DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
- 2Voir Dire Voyeur: I Find Out What Kind of Juror I’d Be
- 3When It Comes to Local Law 97 Compliance, You’ve Gotta Have (Good) Faith
- 4Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Virginia Griffith, Director of Business Development at OutsideGC
- 5Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Bill Tanenbaum, Partner & Chair, AI & Data Law Practice Group at Moses Singer
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250