Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Labor & Employment Law Blogs -> Ross' Employment Law Blog
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Labor & Employment Law
: Ross' Employment Law BlogChristopher v. SmithKline Beecham - update
Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. (11-204)
Issue: Whether pharmaceutical sales representatives were exempt
from FLSA overtime-pay requirements as "outside salesmen."
With respect to the Secretary's appearance as amicus supporting Christopher, the court concluded it owed no deference to the Secretary's current interpretation of the regulations and disagreed with that interpretation. The court found the regulations merely "parrot" section 3(k) of the FLSA and, as such, acquired no special authority by paraphrasing the statutory language. Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 US 243, 257 (2006). In view of many similarities between PSRs and salespeople in other fields, pharmaceutical industry norms, and the acquiescence of the Secretary over the last seventy-plus years, the court could not accord even minimal Skidmore deference to the position expressed in the amicus brief.
[In contrast to the 9th Circuit, the 2nd Circuit adopted the Secretary's position that PSRs did not meet the requirements of the outside sales exemption "when an employee promotes to a physician a pharmaceutical that may thereafter be purchased by a patient from a pharmacy ... the employee does not in any sense make a sale." In re Novartis Wage & Hour Litigation, 611 F3d 141 (2d Cir. 2010).]
Case below: Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp (9th Cir 02/14/2011)
Official docket sheet
Certiorari granted: November 28, 2011.
Oral argument: Monday, April 16, 2012.
Questions presented in petition for certiorari:
Briefs on the merits:The outside sales exemption of the Fair Labor Standards Act exempts from the overtime requirements of the Act "any employee employed... in the capacity of outside salesman (as such terms are defined and delimited from time to time by regulations of the Secretary .)." 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(1). The Secretary of Labor has implemented various regulations that "define and delimit" the outside sales exemption and, filing as amici in this and other related matters, has interpreted these regulations to find the exemption inapplicable to pharmaceutical sales representatives. A split exists between the Second and Ninth Circuits concerning whether this interpretation is owed deference and whether the outside sales exemption of the Fair Labor Standards Act applies to pharmaceutical sales representatives.
The questions presented are:
(1) Whether deference is owed to the Secretary?s interpretation of the Fair Labor Standards Act?s outside sales exemption and related regulations; and
(2) Whether the Fair Labor Standards Act?s outside sales exemption applies to pharmaceutical sales representatives.
- Brief for the Petitioners
- The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including March 19, 2012
- Brief for the United States as Amicus Curia Supporting Petitioners
- Brief of National Employment Lawyers Association and National Employment Law Project as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners
- Brief Amicus Curiae for Medical Professional in Support of Petitioners
- Brief of Certified Class of Pharmaceutical Representatives from Johnson & Johnson as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners
- Brief of Pharmaceutical Representatives as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners
Full post as published by Ross' Employment Law Blog on February 09, 2012 (boomark / email).
SmithKline Beecham and Rule 1.6(b)(1)
We don't know whether lawyers at SmithKline Beecham were aware of the suppressed information, reported in the Times and Journal yesterday, that showed that its diabetes medicine, Avandia, might actually be "riskier to the heart" than a competitor's product (and...
Auer Deference on the Docket
(Jonathan H. Adler) Among this morning?s cert grants was Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., in which the Court will have to determine whether pharmaceutical sales representatives are subject to the ?outside sales? exemption from the Fair Labor Standards Act?s overtime requirements...
SmithKline Beecham plc and others v Avery and others WLR Daily
SmithKline Beecham plc and others v Avery and others [2009] EWHC 1488 (QB); [2009] WLR (D) 218 “The word ‘person’ in section 1(1A)(c) Protection from Harassment Act 1997 is not limited to individuals and includes a body corporate, so a company may apply for an injunction under section 3A on grounds of unlawful harassment of its [...
Dr. Tafas Files Brief in New Rules Appeal
By Donald Zuhn -- Last Wednesday, Plaintiffs-Appellees SmithKline Beecham Corp., SmithKline Beecham plc, and Glaxo Group Ltd. (GSK) filed their brief in the Tafas v. Dudas appeal (see "GSK Files Brief in Tafas v...
GSK Files Petition for Rehearing in Tafas v. Doll
By Donald Zuhn -- Plaintiff-appellee Dr. Triantafyllos Tafas was not alone yesterday in filing a petition for a panel rehearing or rehearing en banc of the March 20 decision in Tafas v...
USPTO Files Opening Brief in Tafas v. Dudas Appeal
By Donald Zuhn and Benjamin Huber -- Last Friday, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and USPTO Director Jon Dudas filed their opening brief in the Tafas v. Dudas appeal. As we previously reported, the Patent Office and Director Dudas had until July 18th (i...
Christopher Fairchild
guilty verdict for helping Tommy Baldridge murder James Mollette.
FDA Issues Update on Safety Review Orlistat
Orlistat FDA Issues Update on Safety Review
UPDATE 1: Caraco Digoxin Recall
Intuit
allegedly sent out a defective QuickBooks Pro update.
Mexican Vanilla Containing Coumarin
, FDA Issues Consumer Update









