On October 25, 2007, the annual Ben Aaron Labor Law Lecture was given by Brad Seligman, Executive Director of The Impact Fund. The topic of the lecture, which was co-sponsored by the Labor and Employment Law Section of the L.A. County Bar Association, was "Is There A Future for Employment Class Action Lawsuits?"

Part 1 (16:16)	Part 2 (15:33)	Part 3 (11:53)	Part 4 (17:20)

Below is a summary of Seligman's lecture.

Brad Seligman shared his observations regarding class action litigation as a means for challenging illegal employment practices and obtaining relief for workers. Over the years, such suits have been used to stop workplace discrimination, obtain fair wages and protect employee privacy. After nearly disappearing in the 1990s, class actions have made a modest comeback, fueled by wage and hour violations and subjective pay and promotions systems that foster discrimination. Mr. Seligman discussed his views regarding the promise of such actions, as illustrated by the Dukes v. Wal-Mart case, a case charging that Wal-Mart denies its female workers equal pay and promotions. Mr. Seligman serves as class counsel for the plaintiffs in this case, which is the largest class ever certified in an employment case.

Mr. Seligman provided his perspective on attempts to deny the use of class actions as an avenue of redress for workers. He addressed: (1) at the federal level, Congress' passage of the Class Action Fairness Act and the restrictions placed by some courts on employment class actions, particularly those that seek damages; (2) at the state level, employers' attempts to cut off class actions by forcing workers to sign arbitration agreements that ban such claims; and (3) in California, a new proposed initiative that would make it much more difficult for any class case to be litigated.

Mr. Seligman also addressed the implications of a new due process theory raised by employers in both employment discrimination and wage and hour class actions: a claim that the employer has the right to individually adjudicate the claims of each class member. He discussed the implications of this theory, which, if adopted, would make most class cases infeasible. This claim is at the heart of Wal-Mart's appeal of the class certification ruling in Dukes v. Wal-Mart.