A Rutgers junior is suing faculty unions for striking last spring, saying students were harmed by missed classes

A Rutgers University student is suing the unions that represent the university’s faculty and instructors, alleging that their strike last year amid prolonged contract negotiations was “selfish and illegal.”

Jeremy Li, a junior at the New Brunswick campus, is seeking compensation for over 67,000 students in a proposed class-action lawsuit. These students missed a week of classes because of the work stoppage by roughly 9,000 educators, researchers, and clinicians.

“The Rutgers faculty unions were aware that strikes would cancel classes, causing students to miss out on the education they had paid for,” said the complaint, which was filed on March 15 in New Jersey Superior Court. “In fact, that was the key for them to gain the leverage they wanted at the bargaining table.”

A spokesperson for the faculty unions declined to comment on the lawsuit. A spokesperson for the university also declined to comment.

A faculty union strike that took place in April 2023 was the first in the university’s history. It lasted five days, and ended after Gov. Phil Murphy called both sides to the Statehouse, where they negotiated toward a new contract framework.

Based on annual in-state tuition and fees of about $17,000, Li estimated that the cost of one week of classes was about $615.

Additionally, the complaint said, Li “was unsure about whether exams would happen on time, which created anxiety for him as a student.”

Li’s complaint also alleged that the strike was illegal because Rutgers faculty and adjuncts are public employees. University president Jonathan Holloway made a similar argument last year in the weeks leading up to the strike.

The complaint asks the court to declare that the strike was illegal and find the unions liable for the students’ losses. Li is also seeking punitive damages for the students, alleging that the unions knew they were causing harm to students by causing classes to be canceled.

Li’s attorney, Daniel Suhr, said the case could “set a crucial legal precedent that unions have to pay for the suffering they cause when they shut down schools with illegal strikes.”