More on Seiner’s Post-Dukes Advice
This post has been viewed 3,042 times.
Another shout out for Joe Seiner’s (SC) recent article, “Weathering Wal-Mart,” on post-Dukes class action lawyering. Thomson-Reuters recently did a story on his article. Some highlights:
“I do think there is a hunger for what are some of the procedural avenues to overcome the decision,” Seiner said in an interview. “How can we achieve a class action? “That’s where I’m trying to push the discussion.” . . .
He prescribes three broad approaches. First, he writes, the EEOC, as a government plaintiff, is not bound by Dukes and should bring more broad-scale cases involving workplace discrimination. While noting that the EEOC is “historically underfunded,” Seiner says the agency can nevertheless achieve meaningful injunctive and monetary relief.
Next, Seiner turns to procedural responses. When trying individual cases, plaintiffs’ attorneys should make better use of collateral estoppel, the doctrine that says that a determination in one case should affect a related matter. . . .
Finally, Seiner writes, plaintiffs’ lawyers should try to “cabin” Wal-Mart, by which he means making sure the decision applies only to the very, very large class actions such as Dukes. They should also try to take the decision “at its word,” by flooding the courts with separate individual lawsuits.
In the article, Joe also notes that his next step maybe to focus more on practioners’ ideas. So I think I can speak for him in saying he’d love to hear from any of you with additional thoughts.
Read original articleTags: Class Action, Class Actions, EEOC, Joe Seiner
Related Posts
