| 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 | 567U.S. 142 (more) 132 S. Ct. 2156; 183L. Ed. 2d 153; 2012U.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, 635F.3d383 (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 | |
| TheFair 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 aUS labor law case of theUnited States Supreme Court.[1] It held thatpharmaceuticalsales representatives were not eligible forovertime pay.[2] The court ruled in amajority opinion written byJustice Samuel Alito that sales representatives were classified as "outside salesmen" who are exempt from theDepartment of Labor's regulations regarding overtime pay.[3]
Michael Christopher and Frank Buchanan worked forGlaxoSmithKline, and claimed overtime pay under theFair 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 aclass action lawsuit, they sought time and a half for over 40 hours work.[7]
TheUnited States District Court for the District of Arizona granted a judgment in favor of GlaxoSmithKline. After theDepartment of Labor filed anamicus in a related case in theSecond Circuit, they appealed to theUnited 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]
Supreme Court held, by a five to four majority, that Christopher and Buchanan were not entitled to overtime pay under theFair 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.