14.  Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (as amended) (“HEA”), 20  U.S.C. § 1070 et seq., governs the administration of the federal student loan  program.    16.  The Department reported that, in fiscal year 2018 alone, it garnished  over $840 million from borrowers with federal Direct Loans. See Office of Fed.  Student Aid, “Default Rates,” https://studentaid.gov/data-center/student/default  (select “FY18 Q1-Q4” under “Default Recoveries by Private Collection Agency” and  hit “GO”) (last visited Apr. 27, 2020).    17.  When a borrower’s delinquency qualifies for garnishment, the  Department will issue a garnishment order directly to the borrower’s employer. 34  C.F.R. § 34.18. The Secretary has the right to take legal action against an employer  in order to enforce that order. 20 U.S.C. § 1095a(a)(6); 34 C.F.R. § 34.29.   18.  The Department’s regulations provide that the amount that can be  garnished is the lesser of fifteen percent of a borrower’s disposable income or the  amount exceeding thirty times the prevailing minimum wage. 34 C.F.R. § 34.19(b).   19.  Once issued, a garnishment order remains in effect until the Secretary  rescinds the order or the debt is paid in full, including interest, penalties, and  collection costs. Id. § 34.26.    21.  Where the Department’s wage garnishment is “barred by law at the  time of the collection action,” the Department must “promptly refund any amount  collected by means of this garnishment.” Id. § 34.28(a). Unless required by federal  law, the Department will not pay interest on a refund. Id. § 34.28(b).  The CARES Act requires immediate suspension of wage garnishment and  notice of the suspension to borrowers.   22.  On March 13, 2020, President Trump declared a national emergency  due to the COVID-19 pandemic.    23.  On March 25, 2020, the Department announced that, due to the  national emergency, it would “halt collection actions and wage garnishments to  provide additional assistance to borrowers. This flexibility will last for a period of at  least 60 days from March 13, 2020.” See Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of Educ.,  “Secretary DeVos Directs FSA to Stop Wage Garnishment, Collections Actions for  Student Loan Borrowers, Will Refund More Than $1.8 Billion to Students,  Families” (Mar. 25, 2020), available at: https://www.ed.gov/news/press- releases/secretary-devos-directs-fsa-stop-wage-garnishment-collections-actions- student-loan-borrowers-will-refund-more-18-billion-students-families.    25.  Prior to and after its passage, legislators from both parties came  together to emphasize that the relief provided under the Act must be provided  immediately. For example, Senator McConnell explained that the CARES Act “puts  urgently-needed cash in the hands of American workers and families. . . . That is  what we have to do: Inject a significant amount of money as quickly as possible into  households, small businesses, key sectors, and our nation’s hospitals and health  centers. This bill would do just that—and do it fast.” Press Release, Sen. Mitch  McConnell, “This is Not a Political Opportunity. It is a National Emergency” (Mar.  22, 2020), available at:  https://www.mcconnell.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ContentRecord_id =16D7E2DB-8860-4B80-A9F3-6E6858BF625D. See also 166 Cong. Rec. S1977 (Mar.  24, 2020) (statement of Sen. John Thune) (“[The CARES Act is filled with resources  to help struggling families, provide relief to workers, and enable businesses to  retain their employees during this crisis. Americans need this bill today, not  tomorrow, [and] not next week[.]”); Press Release, Sen. Chuck Grassley (Mar. 25,  2020), available at: https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley- releases-phase-3-coronavirus-response-legislation (“The economic and public health  crisis we are experiencing as a country is an emergency and Congress must respond  in kind. Congress must pass this legislation immediately.”).    27.  With this provision, Congress immediately suspended wage  garnishments for a six-month period (more than the sixty days previously  announced by the Department) so that struggling student loan borrowers would  have more income to put food on the table and pay their rent and medical bills  during the crisis.    28.  The CARES Act also requires the Department to provide notice to  borrowers of the actions taken suspending wage garnishment on or before April 10,  2020. Section 3513(g)(1)(B) provides that the Secretary shall “not later than 15 days  after the date of enactment of this Act, notify borrowers—. . . . (B) of the actions  taken in accordance with subsection (e) for whom collections have been suspended.”    30.  On or around April 1, 2020, the Department placed the following  guidance to borrowers on its website:  UPDATED: On March 25, 2020, ED announced that my wages would  not be garnished, but money is still being taken from my paycheck.  What should I do?  Your human resources department will receive a letter from ED instructing  them to stop your wage garnishment. If ED receives funds from a  garnishment between March 13, 2020, and Sept. 30, 2020, we will refund  your garnished wages.  See U.S. Dep’t of Educ., “Coronavirus and Forbearance Info for Students, Borrowers, and  Parents,” https://studentaid.gov/announcements-events/coronavirus (last visited Apr.  27, 2020).    31.  Because the Department’s guidance states that borrowers’ wages may  continue to be taken and that they should expect to receive refunds at some  uncertain date in the future, it contradicts the CARES Act’s directive to  immediately suspend involuntary collections.    33.  In a section titled “WHAT YOU NEED TO DO,” the notice states:  “Keep this notification for your records. We’ll communicate with you in August to  help prepare you for Sept. 30 2020, when the . . . stopped collections period ends.  There’s no action you need to take at this time.”   The Department’s failure to implement the CARES Act    34.  Despite these statements—including the notice to borrowers that their  wage garnishment was suspended and there was no further action they needed to  take—the Department continues to illegally garnish wages of borrowers in violation  of the CARES Act, including the wages of Named Plaintiff Elizabeth Barber.   35.  Ms. Barber’s most recent paycheck, dated April 24, 2020, was  garnished in violation of the CARES Act, as were several others, and the  garnishment order remains in effect.    36.  On information and belief, the Department still has not ensured that  all affected employers have received instructions to stop garnishing the pay of their  employees with defaulted federal student loans.    38.  In fact, the Department reportedly attempted to send emails to  employers regarding suspension of wage garnishment but is aware that most of  those emails were never opened. Id.   39.  The CARES Act did not provide the Department with a grace period in  which to provide this temporary six-month relief. To the contrary—as indicated by  the requirement in Section 3513(g)(1)(B) that the Secretary provide notice to  borrowers by April 10, 2020 that wage garnishments were suspended—timely  action is essential to delivering the relief Congress mandated.    40.  Irrespective of steps that the Department may have taken to cease  garnishing wages of some student loan borrowers, it nevertheless has not stopped  the practice altogether and is therefore out of compliance with the CARES Act.   Harm to Named Plaintiff and the Putative Class    41.  The Department’s illegal wage garnishments are causing material and  immediate harm to Named Plaintiff and the proposed class, as well as thwarting  the purpose of the CARES Act to provide fast, direct relief to student loan borrowers  during the current national emergency.    43.  In 2010, Plaintiff Elizabeth Barber attended Nazareth College, where  she studied psychology. Ms. Barber took out federally held student loans to attend  the program. She currently owes approximately $10,000 on those loans.   44.  In 2019, Ms. Barber defaulted on her federal loans, and she received a  Final Notice of Wage Garnishment on December 19, 2019. From January 2020 to  the present, the Department has garnished approximately twelve percent of Ms.  Barber’s wages from her paychecks, for a total of over $900.00.    45.  Ms. Barber is currently employed as a home health aide at Companion  Care of Rochester, Inc., a home care services agency for older adults and individuals  with disabilities. Ms. Barber has continued to provide home health care throughout  the COVID-19 crisis.    46.  Ms. Barber earns $12.89 per hour. In 2019, she earned approximately  $20,000 in total. The money that Ms. Barber earns as a home health aide is her sole  source of income.   48.  Ms. Barber fears bringing the virus into her clients’ homes, especially  those whose medical conditions place them at heightened risk of severe symptoms if  they catch the virus.   49.  Due to the decrease in demand for her services during the COVID-19  pandemic, Ms. Barber’s hours have been reduced by approximately ten to fifteen  hours per week, increasing her financial strain.    50.  As Ms. Barber continues to assist clients in need, the Department—in  violation of the CARES Act—continues to garnish approximately twelve percent of  her paychecks. Most recently, the Department illegally garnished $70.20 from her  April 24, 2020 paycheck.    51.  Ms. Barber is struggling to make ends meet, so every dollar counts as  she tries to meet her immediate needs.   52.  Ms. Barber often has to leave bills unpaid in order to cover her basic  needs. She has no money in her checking or savings accounts, is in arrears on  various local taxes, and is subject to a lien on her home. She is also past due on both  her water and electric bills, which she cannot afford to pay in full each month.    54.  The funds that the Department has illegally garnished are essential to  Ms. Barber’s ability to satisfy her essential financial obligations during the  pandemic.   55.  Named Plaintiff files this class action on behalf of herself and all other  individuals who are similarly situated. She seeks to represent a class consisting of:  All federal student loan borrowers from whom the Department is garnishing  wages in violation of the CARES Act.    56.  The proposed class satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(2)  of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.    57.  The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.  The Department estimates that approximately 285,000 people had their wages  garnished between March 13 and March 26, 2020. See Danielle Douglas-Gabriel,  supra ¶ 37. On information and belief, many of these borrowers continue to have  their wages garnished in violation of the CARES Act. The exact number of class  members can be readily determined using the Department’s records.   58.  The nature of relief sought, as well as questions of fact and law, are  common to all members of the class.    60.  The common questions of law and fact also predominate over any  questions affecting individual members. The common questions of law and fact  include, but are not limited to, whether the Department’s failure to suspend wage  garnishment as required by the CARES Act violates the Administrative Procedure  Act (“APA”).    61.  Named Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of other class  members, as they arise out of the same course of conduct and legal theories and  challenge the Department’s conduct with respect to the class as a whole.   62.  Named Plaintiff is capable of and committed to fairly and adequately  protecting the interests of the class and has no conflicts with other class members.    63.  Named Plaintiff is represented by counsel experienced in higher  education law, administrative law, and class action litigation.    65.  Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference each of the foregoing  allegations as if fully set forth herein.   66.  The garnishment of wages after March 27, 2020 constitutes “final  agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in court.” 5 U.S.C. § 704.   67.  Under the APA, a “reviewing court shall . . . compel agency action  unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed.” Id. § 706(1).    68.  Section 3513(e) of the CARES Act requires the Secretary to suspend,  until September 30, 2020, all involuntary collection—including wage garnishment— of defaulted Direct and FFEL loans currently held by the Department.    69.  By continuing to garnish the wages of Named Plaintiff and the class  following the March 27 enactment of the CARES Act, the Department has  unlawfully withheld its legal obligation to suspend administrative wage  garnishments between March 27, 2020, and September 30, 2020, as required by  Section 3513(e) of the CARES Act.   71.  The garnishment of wages after March 27, 2020, constitutes “final  agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in court.” 5 U.S.C. § 704.   72.  Under the APA, a “reviewing court shall . . . hold unlawful and set  aside agency action . . . found to be . . . arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion,  or otherwise not in accordance with law.” Id. § 706(2)(A).   73.  Section 3513(e) of the CARES Act requires the Secretary to suspend,  until September 30, 2020, all involuntary collection—including wage garnishment— of defaulted Direct and FFEL loans currently held by the Department.    74.  By continuing to garnish the wages of Named Plaintiff and the class  following the March 27 enactment of the CARES Act, the Department is in violation  of Section 3513(e) of the CARES Act. Its actions are therefore not in accordance  with law.    75.  By failing to stop employers from garnishing the wages of Named  Plaintiff and the class following the enactment of the CARES Act, the Department  is in violation of Section 3513(e) of the CARES Act. Its actions are therefore not in  accordance with law.   76.  Plaintiff repeats and incorporates by reference each of the foregoing  allegations as if fully set forth herein.   78.  Under the APA, a “reviewing court shall . . . hold unlawful and set  aside agency action . . . found to be . . . in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority,  or limitations, or short of statutory right.” Id. § 706(2)(C).   79.  Section 3513(e) of the CARES Act requires the Secretary to suspend,  until September 30, 2020, all involuntary collection—including wage garnishment— of defaulted Direct and FFEL loans currently held by the Department.    80.  By continuing to garnish the wages of Named Plaintiff and the class  following the March 27 enactment of the CARES Act, the Department is in violation  of Section 3513(e) of the CARES Act. Its actions are therefore in excess of statutory  jurisdiction or authority.    81.  By failing to stop employers from garnishing the wages of Named  Plaintiff and the class following the enactment of the CARES Act, the Department  is in violation of Section 3513(e) of the CARES Act. Its actions are therefore in  excess of statutory jurisdiction or authority.  COUNT ONE  Violation of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(1) for Garnishing Wages in Violation of  the CARES Act   The Department of Education’s authority to garnish wages    Violation of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) for Garnishing Wages in Violation  of the CARES Act   Violation of the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C) for Garnishing Wages & Failing to  Provide Notice in Violation of the CARES Act  