Robin Effron

Professor of Law

250 Joralemon Street
Brooklyn, NY 11201
(718) 780-7933 |  Email  | CV
Areas of Expertise
Civil Procedure
Comparative Contract Law
Complex Litigation
Education
B.A., Barnard College, Columbia University
J.D., New York University School of Law

Professor Robin Effron Cited in Tennessee Supreme Court Ruling

4/10/2013 Professor Robin Effron was quoted in a recent Tenneseee Supreme Court ruling regarding jurisdiction over foreign manufacturers and importers. Her article, "Letting the Perfect Become the Enemy of the Good: The Relatedness Problem in Personal Jurisdiction," 16 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 867, was cited several times throughout the Court's opinion.  Read More

Professor Robin Effron on Wal-Mart v. Dukes in Westlaw Journal Expert Commentary Series

11/18/2011
In a recent Westlaw Journal Expert Commentary Series, Professor Robin Effron discussed the impact of Wal-Mart v. Dukes on commonality in class action cases. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the defendant, who was being sued by nearly 1.5 million current and former female employees for gender discrimination. The Court was split on the issue of Rule 23(a)(2); the majority maintaining that it was impossible to determine whether all members of the class truly had the same claim. In her article, Professor Effron explores how this new interpretation of Rule 23(a)(2) will affect future class actions.
 Read More

The National Law Journal Features Op-Ed on Class Actions by Professor Robin Effron

6/30/2011
In a recent op-ed for The National Law Journal, Professor Robin Effron discussed the implications of Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v. Dukes, a class action suit involving 1.5 million female Wal-Mart employees who claimed salary discrimination. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the defendant, explaining that the class action complaint did not meet commonality requirements. Professor Effron disagrees with the decision, saying "This reading of "common question" is problematic, and not simply because it is at odds with the text of the rules. It ignores the possibility that investigation and resolution of common issues in a single proceeding can be beneficial to the parties and the judicial system, even if individual issues remain or even predominate."
 Read More