Photo of Noa Baddish

Noa Baddish

Subscribe to Noa Baddish's Posts

Noa M. Baddish is a partner in the Labor & Employment Law Department. She is a member of the Sports, Employment Litigation & Arbitration, Class and Collective Action, Wage & Hour and Whistleblower & Retaliation Practice Groups. Noa is also the Administrative Lead of the Class, Collective and Complex Action Practice Group.

Noa specializes in defending employers in various industries, such as sports, media and entertainment, on a wide variety of matters. With a particular focus on class and collective actions, Noa has successfully defended numerous organizations against complex employment-related claims. Noa’s approach to class and collective action defense is rooted in a thorough understanding of both federal and state employment laws. Noa’s expertise spans topics ranging from wage and hour disputes to discrimination and harassment claims. Noa is well-versed in the intricacies of class and collective action procedures, which allows her to provide comprehensive defense strategies tailored to each client’s objectives and circumstances.

Noa also has experience navigating proceedings before government agencies such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), including Commissioner Charges and those involving complex, large-scale issues such as claims of pattern or practice discrimination.

Noa also works closely with clients to develop proactive compliance strategies, focused on minimizing the risk of litigation. Noa has particular expertise in advising clients on how to conduct reorganizations or restructuring of businesses, otherwise known as “RIFs” and is experienced in all of the technicalities that come along with these types of group-wide employment actions.

Noa was recognized as a Rising Star by New York Super Lawyers from 2015 through 2020. She has authored and contributed to several articles and newsletters on employment and labor topics, including “Managing Legal and Reputational Risks When Right-sizing Your Workforce,” LegalDive (December 2022), “Mediating Employment Disputes,” LexisNexis (June 2019), “Supreme Court Says that Equitable Tolling Cannot Extend Rule 23(f) Deadline,” Proskauer’s Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Blog (February 2019), “FLSA Turns 80: The Evolution of ‘Employee’ Status,” LAW360 (June 2018), and “CFTC Whistleblower Awards On The Horizon,” Proskauer’s Corporate Defense and Disputes Blog (May 2015).

Prior to coming to Proskauer, Noa served as Assistant General Counsel to the New York City Mayor’s Office of Labor Relations and defended the Mayor and City agencies against both employee grievances at arbitration and improper practice petitions before the Board of Collective Bargaining. Prior to that, she was a Law Clerk to Judge Ellen L. Koblitz of the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court.

While in law school, Noa served on the Executive Board as Notes and Articles Editor of the Fordham Urban Law Journal.

Contact:Read more about Noa Baddish

In a 5-4 decision authored by Chief Justice Roberts on April 24, 2019, the United States Supreme Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) precludes a court from compelling class arbitration when an agreement is ambiguous on the availability of such arbitration. Lamps Plus Inc. et al. v. Varela, No. 17-988, 587 U.S.…

In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Sotomayor on February 26, 2019, the Supreme Court held that the 14-day deadline to seek permission to appeal a decision granting or denying class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) cannot be extended through the doctrine of equitable tolling. Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert, No. 17-1094,…

The Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) permits removal of many class actions from state to federal court, but includes a “local controversy” exception that forbids removal where two-thirds or more of the proposed class resides in the state where the action is brought. In disputes over efforts to use CAFA to remove class actions, the…

Last week, in McCaster et al. v. Darden Restaurants, Inc. et al., No. 15-3258 (7th Cir. Jan. 5, 2017), the Seventh Circuit relied on Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) and affirmed the district court’s denial of class certification of Plaintiffs’ claims for vacation pay under state law.  The Seventh Circuit’s reliance on Dukes demonstrates that the Supreme Court’s holding extends beyond the discrimination context and applies with equal force in wage and hour class actions (at least within the Seventh Circuit).  The Court concluded that Plaintiffs’ proposed class definition constituted an impermissible “fail safe” class because an individual’s membership in the class turned on the merits of his or her claim, and that Plaintiffs’ alternative class definition did not satisfy the commonality requirement of Rule 23 under Dukes. This decision exemplifies the critical balance plaintiffs must strike in defining their proposed classes; while a “fail safe” class will not be permitted, a class definition that is too broad will not satisfy the requirements of Rule 23.