gives trial courts broad discretion to define the membership of classes and subclasses, to segregate particular factual and legal issues for case-by-case determination, and to establish the order in which various questions should be considered and determined. Shook’s forced dismissal on summary judgment will do little more than complicate this class action procedurally and cause remaining class members to sustain added expenses. It may also encourage the assertion of additional case-by-case offset motions as a tactical strategy to delay or defeat progress in the class action. Since the trial court can address offset issues in individual cases after the merits of the AWHA class action are determined, I would find no error. Accordingly, I dissent. 1 . 820 P.2d 1068, 1069 (Alaska 1991) (<HOLDING>). 2 . See id. at 1070 (“If the employer entices
holding that claims arising under the age discrimination in employment act may be subject to arbitration holding that liquidated damages under fair labor standards act constitutes compensation for the retention of a workmans pay which might result in damages too obscure and difficult of proof for estimate other than by liquidated damages holding that employer and employee may not privately settle claims for liquidated damages arising under the alaska wage and hour act holding that because liquidated damages under the adea are punitive in nature a jurys award of state punitive damages and adea liquidated damages constitutes a double recovery and therefore reducing the total recovery by the amount of the liquidated damages award holding that liquidated damages under the adea are intended to punish and deter while contrasting them to the legislative purpose of liquidated damages under the fsla