ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> Ross' Employment Law Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Labor & Employment Law

: Ross' Employment Law Blog

Novartis v. Lopes - cert denied in FLSA case

ADVERTISEMENTS

This morning the US Supreme Court denied certiorari in Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp v. Lopes and in Schering Corp v. Kuzinski. [Details]

Plaintiffs, pharmaceutical sales representatives, in a class action sued the employer for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) alleging failure to pay overtime. The trial court granted the employer's motion for summary judgment. The 2nd Circuit reversed.

Plaintiffs did not sell drugs, visiting physicians to encourage prescriptions of the employer's products and providing drug samples and information. The issue was whether the plaintiffs were outside salesmen or administrative employees exercising discretion and independent judgment, both exempt from the FLSA.

The 2nd Circuit thought it clear that the regulations, defining the term "sale" as involving a transfer of title and explained in the Preamble to the 2004 Final Rule as obtaining a commitment to buy, and defining and delimiting the term "outside salesmen" in connection with an employee's efforts to promote the employer's products, did far more than merely parrot the language of the FLSA. The court granted "controlling" deference to the Department of Labor Secretary's interpretations of her regulations, which the court found were not inconsistent or plainly erroneous with the regulations. The 2nd Circuit concluded the plaintiffs were not outside salesmen. With respect to the administrative exemption, the court noted that the Secretary stated that the regulations required a showing of a greater degree of discretion, and more authority to use independent judgment in matters of significance, than the employer allowed the plaintiffs.

The 2nd Circuit found it appropriate to defer to the Secretary's interpretation, even though it was advanced for the first time in an amicus brief.

[Ed. Note: The 9th Circuit reached the opposite conclusion in Christopher v. SmithKline (9th Cir 02/14/2011), finding that pharmaceutical sales representatives were exempt from FLSA overtime-pay requirements as "outside salesmen."]


Full post as published by Ross' Employment Law Blog on February 28, 2011 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0202 secs (new cache)