Bohnak v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:21-cv-06096
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Bohnak v. Marsh & McLennan, Judge Hellerstein granted defendants’ motion to strike class allegations based on Bohnak’s contractual class-action waiver.
Nancy Bohnak cannot pursue the case on a class-wide basis under this order, but the case may continue with her as an individual plaintiff. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. and Marsh & McLennan Agency LLC obtained the requested order striking the class allegations.
What happened
In Bohnak v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc., Nancy Bohnak sought to pursue claims for herself and others after a data breach allegedly exposed sensitive personal information. Defendants argued that Bohnak had waived her right to participate in a class or collective action in a 2014 severance agreement.
The court held that the waiver was valid and enforceable. Because the agreement clearly barred Bohnak from seeking class-wide relief, the court found that her class allegations were barred. The court also rejected her argument that defendants waited too long to raise the waiver.
Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein granted the motion to strike the class allegations. The case may continue with Bohnak as an individual plaintiff, and the court ordered her to file an amended complaint.
The detailed version
- Bohnak v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. · No. 1:21-cv-06096
- Alvin Hellerstein
- Aug. 29, 2024
Background
Nancy Bohnak, a former employee of Marsh & McLennan Companies (MMC), filed this lawsuit seeking class-action relief related to MMC’s data breach. She alleged that her sensitive personal identifying information, and that of proposed class members, had been hacked.
After her employment ended in 2014, Bohnak signed a Waiver and Release Agreement in exchange for an enhanced severance package. The agreement stated that she waived any right to participate in a class or collective action against the company and specified releasees. The agreement did not prevent her from suing individually for claims that were not released or that arose in the future.
The court had previously dismissed the complaint for failure to plausibly allege damages and therefore for lack of standing. The Court of Appeals reversed that decision. Defendants then answered and asserted waiver as an affirmative defense. After some discovery, defendants moved to strike the class allegations based on the 2014 agreement.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that striking class allegations may be appropriate when a contractual waiver clearly prevents a plaintiff’s claim from being brought on a class-wide basis. It found that Bohnak’s 2014 waiver was such an agreement. The court determined that the agreement was valid and enforceable, and that Bohnak had received the benefit of her bargain through the enhanced severance package. It also noted that New York courts have routinely enforced similar class-action waivers.
Bohnak argued that defendants’ motion was filed too late. The court rejected that argument because defendants had identified waiver as an affirmative defense in their answer, which gave notice of the defense. The court also stated that the motion did not have to be filed when defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, and that defendants represented that the severance agreement had been found shortly before the motion. The court found no showing of prejudice.
Disposition
The court granted defendants’ motion to strike the class allegations. The case may continue with Bohnak as an individual plaintiff. The court ordered Bohnak to file an amended complaint conforming to the order by September 16, 2024, and scheduled a revised case-management conference for September 20, 2024. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 61.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.