Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.
 | This article is missing information about Error: you must specify what information is missing.. (November 2013) |
| Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued April 16, 2012 Decided June 18, 2012 | |
| Full case name | Michael Shane Christopher, et al., Petitioners v. Smithkline Beecham Corporation dba GlaxoSmithKline |
| Docket no. | 11-204 |
| Citations | 567 U.S. ___ (more) 132 S.Ct. 2156 (2012) |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Summary judgement granted to Glaxo No. CV-08-1498-PHX-FJM (D. Ariz. 2009); affirmed, 635 F.3d 383 (2011) |
| Holding | |
| The petitioners – pharmaceutical sales representatives whose primary duty is to obtain nonbinding commitments from physicians to prescribe their employer’s prescription drugs in appropriate cases – qualify as outside salesmen under the most reasonable interpretation of the Department of Labor’s regulations. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Alito, joined by Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas |
| Dissent | Breyer, joined by Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan |
| Laws applied | |
| The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938; 29 U.S.C. §§ 206-207 (2006 ed. and Supp. IV); 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(1) | |
Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 567 U.S. ___ (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided on whether pharmaceutical sales representatives were eligible for overtime pay.[1] The court ruled in a majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito that sales representatives were classified as "outside salesmen" who are exempt from the Department of Labor's regulations regarding overtime pay.[2]
Background
Michael Christopher and Frank Buchanan worked for GlaxoSmithKline, a multinational pharmaceutical corporation, as sales representatives for four years starting in 2003. In 2009, Christopher and Buchanan filed a class action lawsuit alleging that the corporation violated the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act by erroneously classifying sales representatives as "outside salesmen" and denying them overtime pay.[3] The United States District Court for the District of Arizona granted a judgement in favor of Glaxo. After the Department of Labor filed an amicus in a related case in the Second Circuit, they appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in California, which affirmed the lower court's decision.[4][5] The plaintiffs then appealed to the supreme court which agreed to hear the case in December 2011.[1]
Decision
The Decision: 5-4, in favor of SmithKline Beecham
Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., writing for a 5-4 majority wrote that The Supreme Court agreed that pharmaceutical sales representatives are “outside salesmen” under the FLSA. [6]
References
- ^ a b Greenwald, Judy (December 4, 2011). "Supreme Court to rule on pharmaceutical sales overtime pay". Business Insider. Retrieved 28 December 2012.
- ^ "Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp". scotusblog.com. SCOTUS Blog. Retrieved 28 December 2012.
- ^ Todd, Susan (June 18, 2012). "U.S. Supreme Court rules against drug sales reps in overtime pay challenge". The Star-Ledger. Retrieved 28 December 2012.
- ^ Weiczorek, Sam. "Argument preview: The "outside salesman" exception to the FLSA's overtime-pay requirement". SCOTUS Blog. Retrieved 29 December 2012.
- ^ Vicini, James (June 18, 2012). "U.S. top court rules for Glaxo on overtime pay". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 29 December 2012.
- ^ http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2011/2011_11_204