Kiran A. Seldon

Seldon represents employers in administrative, trial court and appellate court proceedings.

“I started out doing employment litigation for Seyfarth as a young associate 20 years ago,” she said, “and I gravitated to appeals as I enjoyed the research and the writing and the figuring out of novel legal issues. It’s what I wanted to do and I’ve been doing it for eight years now. It’s a good fit for me.”

Seldon is working from home during the pandemic. “I’m currently set up in the kitchen, which is the command center for the family,” she said. “We’ve gotten into a groove. With work and online schooling, we’ve acclimated. Doing appellate arguments remotely over Zoom can be stressful—you hope no children run into the frame.”

She argued the appeal and obtained a landmark ruling on behalf of her client, the Pac-12 Conference, and the National Collegiate Athletic Association, in major sports litigation over whether Division I football players are employees of the conference or the association. They are not, a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel held in an opinion by Chief Judge Sidney R. Thomas, affirming U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg of San Francisco. Dawson v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, 17-15973 (9th Cir., op. filed Aug. 12, 2019).

The named plaintiff is Lamar Dawson, a former University of Southern California linebacker. Seldon, who got her JD from the UCLA School of Law, laughed that “I graciously agreed to represent the Pac-12 against a Trojan.”

Dawson represented a potential class of student-athletes claiming employment status under state and federal employment laws. Seldon handled the successful defense motion to dismiss and a lengthy oral argument at the district court, then did the briefing and argument before the circuit panel. It was the first case addressing the employment status of Division 1 football players; the outcome was key to Division 1 schools nationwide, which have traditionally not treated any of their student-athletes as employees based on the NCAA’s long tradition of amateurism.

“We knew from the start that this was a new issue and it would be a matter of first impression,” she said. “That was exciting.”

Because it was evident that the matter would end up on appeal, Seldon joined the litigation early. “We wanted to get the framing correct from the start. A motion to dismiss is like an appeal, because you are talking about purely legal issues. Our approach was to focus on that aspect of the case rather than on policy questions. You go to the law as it exists, and the courts agreed with us.”

There’s a level of anxiety in oral argument work, she said, but that’s part of the job. “It’s fun and nerve wracking, but a little less scary every time.”

— John Roemer