01-2-9468 In the Matter of Denial by Higher Educ. Student Assistance Auth. of Petition for Rulemaking, N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (10 pp.) Petitioners appealed from a Notice of Action by the Higher Education Student Assistance Authority denying their petition for rulemaking. The petition sought amendments to N.J.A.C. 9A:9-2.2, a regulation that addresses the one-year New Jersey residency requirement for receiving state financial aid under N.J.S.A. 18A:71B-2(b). The petition was part of a continuing effort to assist students who are United States citizens, but whose parents are undocumented immigrants, to obtain state financial aid to attend institutions of higher education. Petitioners’ rulemaking proposal sought a number of changes to the criteria the agency used to determine whether a student could satisfy the residency requirement. Review of the agency’s action was limited to two proposals in the petition: (1) amending N.J.A.C. 9A:9-2.2(a) to provide that proof of current enrollment in a New Jersey high school shall create a rebuttable presumption that the student is a New Jersey resident; and (2) amending N.J.A.C. 9A:9-2.2(b) by adding to the list of acceptable documents proof of a student’s or parent’s New Jersey voter registration. The agency rejected petitioners’ proposal. First, New Jersey voter registration is not proof of one-year residency because an individual can register to vote in New Jersey 30 days after moving to this state. The agency would consider a student’s New Jersey voter registration as evidence, but not conclusive proof, of residency. The agency’s decision on this issue was not irrational, unreasonable, or otherwise arbitrary and capricious. As to the agency’s rejection of the proposed rebuttable presumption that a student enrolled in a New Jersey high school is a New Jersey resident, the agency reasoned that students are not required to be legal New Jersey residents to attend school in New Jersey. So long as the agency is willing to consider attendance at a New Jersey high school as evidence of a student’s residency, even if not as conclusive proof, the agency did not act arbitrarily in rejecting petitioners’ proposal that such documentation should create a rebuttable presumption of residency.
06-2-9427 Resua v. BCB Bankcorp Inc., N.J. Super. App. Div. (per curiam) (9 pp.) Plaintiffs Jose Resua, Cheryl Resua, and Tracy James, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, filed this putative class action against defendants BCB Bancorp Inc. and BCB Community Bank alleging age discrimination under the Law Against Discrimination. Plaintiffs appeal from an order dismissing the putative class action with prejudice for failure to state a claim. In their complaint, plaintiffs identified five types of personal checking accounts that defendant offered only to persons age 60 years old and older: It was undisputed that these accounts had more favorable terms than the ordinary checking account available to those under age 60. Plaintiffs described the putative class as consisting of individuals under the age of 60 who have personal checking accounts at banks owned and operated by defendants. Review of N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(i), the only section in the LAD that deals directly with banking services, reveals that the Legislature conspicuously omitted “age” in describing the members of the protected class in the area of banking activities. N.J.S.A. 10:5-12(i) does not prohibit a consideration of age in determining whether to provide certain favorable considerations to consumers like plaintiffs. The appellate panel affirmed, finding no legal impediment to financial institutions offering checking accounts with favorable interest rates and no minimum balance requirements to consumers 60 years old and older.
