Posts Tagged ‘ Overtime Pay ’

Thousands may have Claim for Pharmaceutical Sales Rep Overtime

March 2nd, 2011. By LucyC

Well, it looks like the little guys could have it. Yesterday, February 28, 2011, the US Supreme Court announced that it would not reconsider appellate court decisions against Novartis and Merck Schering regarding unpaid overtime class actions.

Essentially, this means that Novartis may have to pony up $100 million or more in back overtime as settlement for some 2,500 plaintiffs.

In so doing, the Supreme Court leaves intact two separate decisions against Novartis and Schering Corp. In July 2010, the 2nd Circuit issued a pair of rulings that found the pharmaceutical sales reps were covered by federal wage-and-hour law.

But—it ain’t over as the expression goes—until the fat lady sings. At least half a dozen pharmaceutical companies are tied up in overtime suits, according to various media sources, and yesterday’s US Supreme Court decision presents a major conundrum. According to the attorneys that represented the Novartis employees, the various rulings against the pharmaceutical companies have ‘opened the floodgates for liability.’ This same law firm is currently representing plaintiffs in four identical wage-and-hour lawsuits against Pfizer, Roche, Merck and Abbott Laboratories. So the bigger question is—does this decision translate into overtime requirements for all pharmaceutical sales reps? (Now we’re talking tens of thousands of workers.)

That remains to be seen, in part because the courts themselves are guilty of issuing conflicting information—other appellate court decisions have decided in favor of the employers. The reason? It’s all down to interpretation. A report in the Star-Ledger indicates that this Supreme Court ruling was partly based on a brief from the Department of Labor that supports the sales’ reps stance on qualifying for overtime pay. As far as Novartis is concerned, they intend to evaluate ‘all legal options.’ Part of an email published in the Star-Ledger, from Novartis, states, “For decades, companies in the pharmaceutical industry have classified their sales representatives as exempt employees and have compensated them on a pay-for-performance basis, the same way they compensate executives, managers and other professionals.”

And, in a brief submitted by Merck, the pharmaceutical company reportedly wrote that another appellate court concluded that “no deference was owed to DOL’s new interpretation expressed in its brief.”(Star-Ledger). Of course Merck isn’t too happy about the Supreme Court ruling either. The company inherited an overtime lawsuit against Schering-Plough, when it acquired SP in 2009.

It doesn’t help that the Supreme Court offered no comment whatsoever on its decision: an explanation making clear their reasons for their decision could have helped in reducing the likelihood of further legal wrangling—which will almost certainly occur because the stakes here are high indeed.

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA), which is the leading trade group representing the US pharmaceutical industry, had argued in its petition to the Supreme Court that the lower court’s decision had “potentially far-reaching ramifications’’ for the industry, and called the decision against Novartis an error. “The decision unexpectedly exposes PhRMA members to potentially staggering retroactive liability from lawsuits by current and former employees,’’ the brief stated. “Serious consequences loom because of nothing more than an unexplained change in the Department of Labor’s interpretation of its regulations.’’ (Star-Ledger)

Of course, none of this changes the fact that the reps who filed the suit against Novartis—more than four years ago now—did put in the time—as much as 70 hours per week, according to their lawyers.

Frankly, I can’t help thinking that the whole debate around unpaid overtime is just a little too Dickensian for 2011, and that a little more clarity would go a long way to improving the situation for both sides.

Tags: Abbott, Exempt, Merck, Non-Exempt, Novartis, Overtime Pay, Pharma Sales Overtime, Pharmaceutical Sales Reps, Roche, Schering-Plough
Posted in Drugs/Medical, Employment, lawsuits | 7053No Comments »2011-03-02+14%3A02%3A32LucyC

Are Outside Sales Reps Exempt from Overtime Pay?

October 5th, 2010. By Kristine B

It’s one of the great conundrums facing employees today: determining whether or not they are exempt from overtime pay. For some, the answer is simple but for others, the answer is much more difficult. Many companies try to classify employees as exempt from overtime pay for obvious reasons—it saves them money. But that doesn’t make it right. This week, Pleading Ignorance looks at outside sales representatives and explains why (or why not) they should be paid overtime.

Outside sales representatives spend a lot of their time talking with clients and potential clients. They explain the company’s products, prices and the benefits their products have over a competing product. They may or may not leave free samples with the client (or potential client) and may follow up later to encourage the potential client to purchase the product.

Outside sales representatives are considered exempt from overtime pay, but there is a catch to this. Some sales reps may be misclassified as exempt from overtime pay when, in fact, they are not.

To be exempt from overtime pay as an outside sales person, the person has to directly affect the sale transaction.

Here’s an example: I market pens to you (let’s say you’re a doctor who needs pens). Because of my marketing of the pens, you decide to buy them. I have directly affected the sale of the pens and am, therefore, considered an outside sales person.

Now, consider pharmaceutical sales reps: They go to a doctor’s office and market a drug, drug X. But, the doctor doesn’t actually purchase drug X. All the doctor does is prescribe Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: Exempt, Outside Sales, Overtime Pay
Posted in Employment | 51492 Comments »2010-10-05+20%3A37%3A55Kristine+B

Not All Pharma Sales Reps Happy with Novartis Overtime Decision

July 21st, 2010. By AbiK

When it comes to lawsuits that affect a lot of folks, there are always those who feel they’ve come out ahead, and those who don’t…

If you read some of the comments floating around online about the Novartis overtime pay ruling that happened a couple of weeks ago, you just might be surprised. Most of us automatically assume that when someone sues for overtime pay—and wins!—that everyone’s hopping around with glee and a sort of “yeah! screw them!” attitude about the offending employer.

Not so with Novartis.

But it’s not because anyone seems to have a lot of love for Novartis. No, the issue is more about the bigger picture—and the age-old question of “what’s in it for me?”.

Well, if you’re a “sales” representative at Novartis, the “what’s in it for me?” question may be answered with a “not much.” Seems this decision sort of makes you a bit of a non-entity in the scheme of things—ie, the scheme of things being labelled “sales”. What do you do? Do you sell? No. Do you work on the marketing plans—as in a more senior, independent decision-maker role? Uh, no. So you, therefore, don’t meet the outside sales or administrative exemptions for overtime pay—and gee whiz—you can get—and should’ve gotten—overtime pay!

Note, I said “non-entity”. That’s not meant as a low blow here. The fact of the matter is Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: Novartis, Overtime Pay, Pharma Sales Rep
Posted in Emerging Issues, Employment | 44601 Comment »2010-07-21+14%3A33%3A37AbiK

What’s Got You Annoyed? Take a Look…

June 28th, 2010. By AbiK

I have this little Monday morning ritual where I take a look at all the comments and claims that come in to LawyersAndSettlements.com over the weekend. Seems that’s when a lot of folks allow themselves a moment or two to think about what’s really pissing them off. Things like defective products, denied insurance claims, whatever. But there are always a few topics that folks write in about that seem to hit a common nerve (or, shall I say, that proverbial last nerve?).

So just in case you were wondering, here are some things that have you annoyed today…

GM Saturn transmissions
Hyundai Tiburon clutch issues
Overtime Pay (or the lack thereof)
Trex Decks–things like mold growth and surface “flaking”
Bank of America
BP Oil Spill
CertainTeed roof shingles
Citizens Bank
PRA LLC (debt collection)
Amiodarone (heart medicine)

Ok folks—I know I must be missing some here—so feel free to add to the list. Oh, and for the record, health insurance companies are what’s pissing me off today. Try this one on for size: I just received a Statement of Benefits that’s indicates my “Group” is an employer I haven’t worked for in five years—and yes, my medical provider had the correct insurance plan information. So what do you think happened to the claim? DENIED.

Tags: Amiodarone, Bank of America, BP Oil Spill, Certainteed, Citizens Bank, Overtime Pay, PRA LLC, Saturn, Tiburon, Trex Decks
Posted in Complaints/Comments | 4195No Comments »2010-06-28+20%3A19%3A17AbiK

Week Adjourned: 1.29.10

January 29th, 2010. By LucyC

Top Class Actions

Citizen of your Wallet? It seems that no amount of bad PR or more importantly, federal regulations, are effective deterrents against bad business practices by banks. This week, a potential class action lawsuit was filed against Citizens Bank alleging that customers have been unfairly charged overdraft fees. Sound familiar? It should. This is just one in a spate of similar lawsuits involving overdraft fees—including a class action against Bank Atlantic, in November 2009.

In this particular lawsuit, Citizens Bank could be on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars it allegedly unlawfully charged its customers by manipulating debit transaction postings to generate overdraft fees. In other words, CB seemingly put its customers into debt deliberately so it could charge overdraft fees. You do that to enough customers and presto—you’re rich—possibly even rich enough to afford those six figure senior management bonuses.

And the kicker? The fees were imposed under the guise of an ‘overdraft protection plan’ that the lawsuit alleges customers were not allowed to opt out of. I guess the epitaph to this could be—they don’t have your back—they have your wallet.