By Michael S. Kun, David W. Garland, Douglas Weiner

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has become the latest Circuit Court to weigh in on the subject of whether pharmaceutical sales representatives are covered by the FLSA outside sales exemption.  The result, in Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham, No. 10-15257 (9th Cir. Feb. 14, 2011), is a resounding victory for employers in the pharmaceutical industry.

The plaintiffs and the Secretary of Labor argued, among other things, that sales representatives in fact do not make sales at all, which places them outside the bounds of the outside sales exemption.  Although other courts have agreed, in unmistakably clear language the Ninth Circuit rejected this argument.   The Court explained that the plaintiffs’ contention “that they do not ‘sell’ to doctors “ignores the structure and realities of the heavily regulated pharmaceutical sales industry.”  Although pharmaceutical sales representatives are prohibited by federal law from consummating direct sales to physicians and patients, the Court held that a “common sense” interpretation of the duties of pharmaceutical sales representatives shows that they fall plainly within the terms of the outside sales exemption.

Recognizing the reality of what pharmaceutical sales representatives do, the Court observed that they secure the most that they can achieve under the law from physicians -- a non-binding commitment to prescribe the assigned product when medically appropriate.  This commitment is valued enough that the manufacturer rewards the representative with increased commissions when “a physician increases his or her use of a drug in the PSR’s bag.”

Unlike the Second Circuit in In Re Novartis, which adopted the Secretary of Labor’s position that the outside sales exemption did not apply to pharmaceutical sales representatives, the Ninth Court refused to give deference to the Secretary’s amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs’ claims.  In strong language, the Court questioned why the DOL had changed its position on an exemption that has existed since 1938, noting that until the Secretary’s appearance in In Re Novartis, it had not “challenged the conventional wisdom that detailing is the functional equivalent of selling pharmaceutical products.”  

Although welcome, the Ninth Circuit’s opinion is unlikely to be the final word on this important issue.  Novartis has filed a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.  Given the split among the circuits, it would not be surprising for the Supreme Court to take an interest in this issue.

Back to Wage and Hour Defense Blog Blog

Search This Blog

Blog Editors

Related Services

Topics

Archives

Jump to Page

Subscribe

Sign up to receive an email notification when new Wage and Hour Defense Blog posts are published:

Privacy Preference Center

When you visit any website, it may store or retrieve information on your browser, mostly in the form of cookies. This information might be about you, your preferences or your device and is mostly used to make the site work as you expect it to. The information does not usually directly identify you, but it can give you a more personalized web experience. Because we respect your right to privacy, you can choose not to allow some types of cookies. Click on the different category headings to find out more and change our default settings. However, blocking some types of cookies may impact your experience of the site and the services we are able to offer.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable information.

Performance Cookies

These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not know when you have visited our site, and will not be able to monitor its performance.