Photo of Nicole Eichberger

Nicole A. Eichberger is a partner in the Labor and Employment Law Department and head of the New Orleans office. She is a member of the Class & Collective Actions and Wage and Hour Groups. Nici is an experienced trial lawyer and represents clients in all types of employment-related matters, from single-plaintiff and complex employment to large, complex class and collective actions alleging discrimination, non-compete violations, and wage and hour disputes.

Nici has significant experience assisting clients in the defense of numerous class and collective actions. She frequently counsels employers, fiduciaries, and trustees on employment, wage and hour and benefit issues.

In addition to her litigation practice, Nici assists in conducting workplace investigations and audits related to discrimination, managerial training, non-competes and employee classification. She is adept to counseling clients on a wide array of issues including reviewing and drafting employee handbooks, wage and hour issues, employee leave and training policies.

She is a member of the Firm’s eDiscovery Group and advises clients on eDiscovery matters, including day-to-day preservation, investigations and litigation strategies.

Nici recently completed a three-year term was on the ABA’s Standing Committee on Pro Bono & Public Service and serves as the Pro Bono Co-Coordinator for Proskauer’s New Orleans office. She is a prolific writer, frequently contributing to Proskauer’s Law and the Workplace Blog and a sought-after speaker on collective/class action topics.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes impacted not only employment class actions but the viability of class certification in ERISA cases. The Supreme Court’s grant of certiorari last term in Comcast Corporation v. Behrend has the potential to similarly impact the future availability of class certification in ERISA actions. The Supreme Court granted Comcast’s petition for certiorari with respect to the following question on which the federal circuit courts have been divided since Dukes:

Whether a district court may certify a class action without resolving whether the plaintiff class has introduced admissible evidence, including expert testimony, to show that the case is susceptible to awarding damages on a class-wide basis.

Although Comcast is an antitrust lawsuit, the Supreme Court’s decision could affect certification decisions in ERISA class actions, since the evaluation of class certification motions in ERISA cases often involves an assessment of the parties’ respective expert analyses.

Experts have always played a significant role in complex class action litigation, including ERISA lawsuits, but the courts’ views as to the role of experts at the class certification stage were inconsistent at best. The Supreme Court’s decision in Dukes arguably affected the analysis, insofar as the Court set forth a “significant proof” standard for satisfying Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. As part of the “significant proof” discussion, the Supreme Court stated in dicta that the admissibility standard for expert evidence set forth in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc.,[1] should apply at the class certification stage. After Dukes, the circuit courts have divided on whether a ruling on the admissibility of expert evidence is a prerequisite to a class certification ruling. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Comcast should resolve this split and, in so doing, significantly impact the outcome of class action litigation, including ERISA litigation.