Supreme Court Won't Review Sales Rep Overtime

In what is being hailed as a victory for sales reps, the US Supreme Court has decided not to review lawsuits in which a lower court decided that Novartis and Schering-Plough should have paid overtime to its sales teams. The move means that still other lawsuits filed against several other drugmakers are likely to yield the same outcome, possibly prompting changes in the way sales reps are compensated (see the court denialshere and here).

Here's the background: a federal appeals court last July ruled Novartis reps are not exempt from overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and, therefore, should be paid overtime. The same court also upheld a similar decision reached two years ago against Schering-Plough by a federal court, which denied a motion to dismiss a case brought against the drugmaker by some of its sales reps (see the rulings here and here).

The decision against Novartis and Schering-Plough was made by the Second Circuit, which presides over territory where other lawsuits have been filed against Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Abbott Laboratories and Bristol-Myers Squibb. As a result, the Supreme Court decision suggests that sales reps are likely to win their cases in these jurisdictions. However, this will not effect, for now, a recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit, which ruled in favor of Glaxo that sales reps do not qualify for overtime pay.

"The specter of a Supreme Court review is greatly diminished, although not eliminated, because the court could take it up with some other case in the future," says Charles Joseph, who represents sales reps in many of the lawsuits against drugmakers. "For now, the Second Circuit decision remains the law of the land in the Second Circuit. "I do not understand how these drugmakers will not have to immediately start to change their practices."

The Second Circuit found that sales reps are not exempt from overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The FLSA’s overtime compensation requirement doesn’t apply to employees who work as outside salespeople, but the law does require employers to pay overtime for hours worked beyond 40 hours a week, unless a FLSA exemption applies. What are those exemptions? If an employee’s primary duty is to obtain orders or contracts (as defined by the statute) and regularly does so away from the employer’s place of business.

Drugmakers argue their sales reps are, indeed, outside salespeople who close sales because the primary customer is the physician. But in 2009, the US Department of Labor added an unexpected twist to the debate by filing an amicus brief with a federal appeals court contending that a lower court was wrong to toss their lawsuit (see here).

UPDATE: In response, Andre Wyss, who heads Novartis US operations, sent a note to employees to say: "We are disappointed with the decision and are evaluating all legal options. As our primary link to customers and key contributors to the achievement of our business goals, we value the work of our sales representatives and specialists. We are disappointed with the decision and are evaluating all legal options. As our primary link to customers and key contributors to the achievement of our business goals, we value the work of our sales representatives and specialists."

9 Comments

Feb 28, 2011 - 1:43pm

Reps are not sales people, they are PR/ marketing reps. No contract, scripted marketing messages, dictated call plans - they have no autonomy other than working from home.

Big pharma needs to pay up.

Feb 28, 2011 - 3:49pm

Does this mean the sales reps should return their bonuses from meeting sales targets?

Condor Feb 28, 2011 - 5:36pm

For alig --

There is no inherent tension -- under applicable U.S. labor and employment law -- between getting a bonus on the one hand, and getting overtime on the other. They are by no means mutually exclusive buckets.

In fact, examples of this pracitice -- overtime AND bonus -- are legion in the auto, mining and oil industries, among others. . . just FYI. This is offered in earnest, on the very remote chance that you were not attempting to be sarcastic.

Namaste

Feb 28, 2011 - 7:07pm

A bonus does not infer commission. If Pharma reps were commissioned the industry would have to pay on actual sales dollars. Not something they want to happen. A bonus is just a reward for doing well in eyes of leadership. Any employee regardless of position may be eligible for a bonus. In pharma sales a bonus is great way to control cost and make incetive comp as much of a fixed expense as possible.

Feb 28, 2011 - 7:29pm

Being a pharma rep is the best paying part-time gig around. The thought of asking for overtime boggles the mind!

Feb 28, 2011 - 8:39pm

I'd have to guess that those well-paid reps enjoying their part-time gig have been 'working smarter'; if you work overtime, and can't make incentive comp, you're probably motivated to sue.

Feb 28, 2011 - 9:28pm

I am overjoyed that it appears they will eventually have to pay up big time. They have screwed employees big time and now it just may catch up with them!

Feb 28, 2011 - 11:31pm

At Pfizer we worked a good 70 hours a week and everything we did was required. We could not even do all the work they wanted and half of it turned out to be illegal. Paying doctors to run fake clincial trials with relabeled samples was the most outrageous idea from the business team. For some reason the DM did not know it was illegal to relabel the samples and add stickers to the bags we put the samples in without package inserts which the DM said were no longer required. How a DM was this poorly trained was unbelieveable. Of course the Executive directors confesssed the regulations were a JOKE and let him off so he could continue his career. ANd the compliance officers only recommended termination while they fired the reps doing the reporting, following Kindler's written policy. All the quacky lawyers appear to be promoted.

Mar 2, 2011 - 12:37am

they need to cut the song and dance, and pass out the loot.