Class Certification is Granted in Students’ Lawsuit Against Maric College, Owned by Kaplan
July 9, 2007
MarketWire
Los Angeles, CA. (July 9, 2007) – Judge Rolf M. Treu ruled Tuesday that a group of students’ lawsuit against Maric College, owned by Kaplan, can proceed as a class action. The suit alleges that the school was not truthful when it told students enrolling in its Radiologic Technologist training program that upon graduation they would be able to sit for a national certification exam offered by the American Registry of Radiologic Technologists (ARRT). In fact, the school’s program was not accredited and the students were unable to sit for the ARRT when they graduated. “Maric advertised its program as one which would make graduates eligible to take an exam and receive the ARRT certificate. But the students couldn’t sit for the exam, because Maric was not, in fact, accredited,” commented John N. Quisenberry, an attorney representing the plaintiff class.
“These students are hardworking adults, many of whom made a personal sacrifice in pursuing an expensive course of technical instruction at Maric College for 18 months,” said Heather M. McKeon with The Quisenberry Law Firm. “Most hospitals in California require that radiologic technologists be ARRT certified as a condition of employment. In addition, these students were unable to work outside of California as radiologic technologists.” Many students who go through this program look to continue furthering their careers by obtaining additional certificates, such as an MRI certificate, which they are unable to do without the ARRT certification. Henry G. Weinstein, also representing the plaintiffs, noted, “These students paid about $20,000 to Maric College for the program. Many are still paying off their student loans. They did not receive the value of what they bargained for when they enrolled.”
The students brought their lawsuit under provisions of the California Education Code known as the Maxine Waters Act, a consumer protection statute which prohibits vocational schools such as Maric College from making untrue statements to students about the school’s accreditation and the programs it offers. Although this statute has expired, consumer groups are working on a replacement act that would serve the same purpose as the Maxine Waters Act. This case, which demonstrates the harm an educational institution can inflict on its students through misleading or untrue statements, is a good example of why such acts are important and necessary.
For additional information, contact:
Jennifer Reynolds
Marketing Director
310-785-7966
jreynolds@quislaw.com
