Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.
| 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. 142 (more) 132 S. Ct. 2156; 183 L. Ed. 2d 153; 2012 U.S. LEXIS 4657; 19 WH Cases 2d 257; 80 U.S.L.W. 4463 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Summary judgement granted to Glaxo, No. CV-08-1498-PHX-FJM (D. Ariz. 2009); affirmed, 635 F.3d 383 (9th Cir. 2011); cert. granted, 565 U.S. 1057 (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. 142 (2012), is a US labor law case of the United States Supreme Court.[1] It held that pharmaceutical sales representatives were not eligible for overtime pay.[2] 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.[3]
Facts
[edit]Michael Christopher and Frank Buchanan worked for GlaxoSmithKline, and claimed overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. They argued they were employees under 29 USC § 207(a),[4] while GSK contended they were acting ‘in the capacity of outside salesman’ under § 213(a).[5] In turn 29 C.F.R. § 541.500 defined ‘outside salesman’ as ‘any employee’ whose duty was ‘making sales’ under § 203(k) which said that included ‘any sale, exchange, contract to sell’ and so on.[6] Christopher and Buchanan were sales representatives for around four years from 2003, who marketed to physicians to buy the company's products. They spent 40 hours a week calling physicians, and another 10 to 20 hours attending events and performing other miscellaneous tasks. Their pay included a salary and bonus pay, based on performance in selling. In a class action lawsuit, they sought time and a half for over 40 hours work.[7]
The United States District Court for the District of Arizona granted a judgment in favor of GlaxoSmithKline. 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.[8][9][10] The plaintiffs then appealed to the Supreme Court.[2]
Judgment
[edit]Supreme Court held, by a five to four majority, that Christopher and Buchanan were not entitled to overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act, because they were effecting sales within the Act's exception in § 213(a).[5] Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the court, in which Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas joined.
Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan joined.
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 567 U.S. 142 (2012).
- ^ a b Greenwald, Judy (December 4, 2011). "Supreme Court to rule on pharmaceutical sales overtime pay". Business Insider. Retrieved December 28, 2012.
- ^ "Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp". scotusblog.com. SCOTUS Blog. Retrieved December 28, 2012.
- ^ .
- ^ a b .
- ^ 29 CFR 541.500.
- ^ Todd, Susan (June 18, 2012). "U.S. Supreme Court rules against drug sales reps in overtime pay challenge". The Star-Ledger. Retrieved December 28, 2012.
- ^ Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 635 F.3d 383 (9th Cir. 2011).
- ^ Weiczorek, Sam (April 5, 2012). "Argument preview: The "outside salesman" exception to the FLSA's overtime-pay requirement". SCOTUS Blog. Retrieved December 29, 2012.
- ^ Vicini, James (June 18, 2012). "U.S. top court rules for Glaxo on overtime pay". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved December 29, 2012.
External links
[edit]- Text of Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 567 U.S. 142 (2012) is available from: Cornell CourtListener Google Scholar Justia Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Court (slip opinion) (archived)