Companies hit by gender bias settlements

Tuesday, July 27th, 2010

Sanofi-Aventis and Novartis have been forced to agree multi-million settlements after female sales reps won gender bias cases in the US.

Novartis has agreed to pay $152.5 million to 5,600 female executives and Sanofi-Aventis a tenth of that amount to 5,200 reps.

As a result, both will be required to overhaul internal policies of pay and promotions for female sales force members. The settlement also requires Sanofi to increase females’ salaries if gender disparities are found.

The Novartis settlement, which followed a jury ordering the company’s US unit Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp to pay $250 million in punitive damages in May, was described by lawyers as the largest gender discrimination case to go to trial in the US.

The Sanofi deal will be heard on August 3rd with the Novartis settlement scheduled for November 19th.

Novartis to compensate reps for unpaid overtime

Friday, July 9th, 2010

Novartis in the US will have to compensate its sales force following a court ruling that representatives qualify for overtime pay.

A similar judgment was made in a case in relation to Schering-Plough representatives the same day, while Abbott Labs and Boehringer Ingelheim have also lost related cases.

Industry analysts have questioned whether the verdict could actually hasten the “death of the salesman” by making sales representatives more expensive.

The decision overturned a previous ruling that sales representatives fell under exceptions to the Fair Labour Standards Act, which rules that workers have to be paid time and a half for any work over 40 hours a week.

Around 2,500 current and former Novartis sales people employed between 23 March 2000 and 7 April 2007 will be affected by the decision. One lawyer estimated that damages could reach a total of $100 million.

This is the second employment law case that Novartis has lost in recent months in the US, following a sex discrimination case that resulted in employee payouts of up to $250 million.

In 2009 Southern District Judge Paul Crotty found that representatives did not qualify under the Act as they were working remotely. However, in the appeals court the plaintiffs won their case by arguing that their work is “repetitive and trivial”.

Commenting on the case in a blog on BNET Pharma, US journalist Jim Edwards said: “Ironically, the reps’ success in obtaining overtime will likely hasten the death of the salesman. Companies already regard them as too expensive and have laid off tens of thousands over the recession. This ruling will likely make them more expensive still.”

There is no similar Act in the UK regarding overtime pay, so it is up to companies to agree fair policies with their employees.