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 an article published in InsideCounsel, Steve Pearlman, co-head of Proskauer’s Whistleblowing & Retaliation Group, lent his insight into recently released statistics showing a thirty-percent increase in the number of whistleblower retaliation complaints filed with OSHA since 2009, and the corresponding need for employers to carefully manage…

In a recent Employment Law360 article (subscription required), Steve Pearlman, co-head of Proskauer’s Whistleblowing & Retaliation Group, commented on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Wiest v. Lynch, No. 11-cv-4257, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 5345 (3d Cir. March 19, 2013), adopting the U.S. Department of Labor Administrative Review Board’s interpretation of “protected activity” under SOX’s whistleblower provisions.  

An  Illinois Appellate Court recently found that the Illinois Whistleblower Protection Act (740 ILCS § 174/1, et seq.) (IWA) does not require that the employee’s disclosure is the first, or only, disclosure of a violation of a state or federal law, rule or regulation for that disclosure to form the basis of a cause of action.  Willms v. OSF Healthcare Sys., No. 3-12-0450 (3d Dist. Feb. 26, 2013) (available here). 

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ruled that a SOX whistleblower complaint survived a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge on “reasonable belief” grounds and found that complaints of potential future violations of the law may amount to protected activity. Zulfer v. Playboy Enterprises, Inc., No. 12-cv-08263 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2013). This ruling (styled as “tentative”) is in line with a few other district court rulings, but is at odds with a seminal Fourth Circuit decision and other district court cases.

On January 18, 2013, a former New Mexico Public Regulation Commission (PRC) employee prevailed in the first case to reach trial under the state’s Whistleblower Protection Act (NMWPA). Feliciano v. New Mexico Public Regulation Commission, et al., No. D-101-cv-2010-02008 (First Judicial District Court, State of New Mexico, County of Santa Fe). A jury awarded Aaron Feliciano, a former compliance director of PRC, $355,345 in damages and approximately $250,000 in legal fees. The NMWPA provides for double damages, so Feliciano will receive a total award of approximately $960,000.