Header graphic for print

Healthcare Employment Counsel

Addressing issues at the intersection of employment law and healthcare

Seventh Circuit: Pharmaceutical Sales Reps Are Exempt Administrative Employees

By Michele Malloy

The Seventh Circuit has weighed in on the employers’ side of the pharmaceutical sales representative exemption issue, finding that pharmaceutical sales representatives at Abbott Laboratories, Inc. and Eli Lilly & Company were properly classified as exempt under the administrative exemption to the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In Schaefer-LaRose v. Eli Lilly & Co., the Seventh Circuit issued a consolidated opinion in two cases in which the district courts had reached opposite results, with one court ruling in favor of the plaintiffs and the other ruling against.

Noting that the factual disputes in the cases “are insignificant and, therefore, are not material to the outcome of either case,” the court focused primarily on the application of the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) administrative exemption regulations and case law interpreting the exemption. First, the Seventh Circuit examined whether the sales representatives’ primary duty, as required to meet the criteria of the exemption, was the performance of office or non-manual work directly related to the management or general business operations of the employer or the employer’s customers, as required by the regulations. Plaintiffs argued that to meet the requirements for the exemption, the sales representatives must be “higher level employees” whose work is targeted at the overall sales, promotional, and marketing policies of the company. Further, they argued that cases that have applied the exemption involved employees who had greater authority regarding strategic design, proposal writing, supervision or other “similar significant responsibilities.” Rejecting these arguments, the Seventh Circuit pointed out that in the preamble to the current regulations, the DOL reaffirmed “the view it has held for more than sixty years that ‘the administrative operations of the business include the work of employees servicing the business, such as, for example, advising the management, planning, negotiating, representing the company, purchasing, promoting sales, and business research and control.’” In this regard, the court noted that the sales representatives “are the principal ongoing representatives of the company to the professional community that is in a unique position to make, or deny, a viable market for the company’s product . . . [and] are one of the principal, and perhaps the main conduit by which physicians provide meaningful feedback to the company on the actual effectiveness, and limitations, of the product.” Thus, the Seventh Circuit concluded, the sales representatives’ primary duty was the performance of work directly related to the general operations of the employers’ business. Continue Reading

Posted in Class Actions, Wage & Hour

Wage/Hour Class and Collective Action Against Hospital Dismissed for Failure to Allege Facts Establishing Similarly Situated Class or Common Issues

By Ryan Eddings

In a significant case for healthcare and other employers, a Massachusetts federal district court dismissed, with prejudice, and denied  certification of a wage and hour class and collective action at the initial stage of the case, finding that the plaintiffs “failed to allege that this proposed nebulous block of potentially over 4,000 plaintiffs are ‘similarly situated.’” As in similar decisions discussed on this blog (here and here), the  court criticized the vague and conclusory allegations in the complaint, which the court found failed to state a claim under the FLSA. Most significantly, however, in what may become a powerful argument for healthcare employers seeking to dismiss class and collective actions, the court went a step further and held that the complaint failed to satisfy the pleading standards for class and collective actions under the FLSA and Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. To survive a motion to dismiss in such cases, the court stated, “a plaintiff must properly allege a factual basis showing that there are similarly situated persons entitled to relief . . . and/or that [there are] common issues of fact.” Continue Reading

Posted in Class Actions, Hospitals, Wage & Hour

OFCCP Confirms Intention to Continue Pursuing TRICARE Providers

By David Goldstein

On April 25, 2012, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) presented a short webinar on “The Status of Pending Compliance Evaluations of Entities that Participate in Tricare Networks” to provide additional information on the agency’s position regarding jurisdiction over health care providers.

First, the agency confirmed that it continues to take the position that it has jurisdiction over TRICARE participants notwithstanding language in the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act] that was intended by Congress to establish a contrary result.  The OFCCP is currently seeking vindication of its position in the case it brought against Florida Hospital of Orlando in 2008, which is now pending before the Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board. The OFCCP did not, however, explain the basis for its position in the Florida Hospital case and declined to answer questions about the issue. Continue Reading

Posted in Hospitals, OFCCP

Ninth Circuit Rules Unlimited Absences Constitute Unreasonable Accommodation for Intensive Care Nurse

By Tony Rizzotti and Jeanne Barber

Last week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a favorable decision for healthcare employers regarding reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, recognizing that regular attendance is an essential function of an intensive care unit nurse’s job. In Samper v. Providence St. Vincent Medical Center, a neo-natal intensive care (“NICU”) nurse suffering from fibromyalgia argued that the hospital failed to reasonably accommodate her condition by allowing her unlimited absences. The hospital’s leave of absence policy was already generous, providing every NICU nurse with five unplanned absences during any 12-month period. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the hospital, holding that exempting the nurse from this absence policy was unreasonable. Continue Reading

Posted in ADA, Hospitals

Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments on Overtime for Pharmaceutical Representatives

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., a case to determine whether pharmaceutical sales representatives (PSRs) qualify for the outside sales exemption under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Supreme Court’s opinion will settle a split between the Second and Ninth Circuits in which the Second Circuit held that PSRs are not making sales under the FLSA and – in the underlying case – the Ninth Circuit held that they are, qualifying them as outside sales employees. A broader issue to be decided by the Court is the level of deference owed to a regulatory agency that announces new substantive positions through amicus curiae filings. Here, the Second Circuit’s opinion was largely based on a position taken by the Department of Labor (DOL) through an amicus brief where it advocated that the PSRs do not qualify for an exemption to the FLSA’s overtime requirements. The Ninth Circuit rejected the DOL’s position, finding it need not be afforded deference under Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997). To learn more about the case and its potential implications for employers, please continue reading at Littler’s Wage and Hour Counsel.

Posted in Class Actions, Wage & Hour

OSHA to Renew Focus on Hazards in Nursing and Residential Care Facilities

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has announced a new National Emphasis Program (NEP) (pdf) that sets forth the policies and procedures for targeting and addressing occupational illnesses and injuries most commonly experienced in nursing and residential care facilities. As described in the NEP, these hazards include ergonomic stressors relating to resident handling; exposure to blood and other potentially infectious materials; exposure to tuberculosis; workplace violence; and slips, trips, and falls. The NEP discusses each of these areas and provides guidance to OSHA compliance staff on how best to conduct investigations to assess potential hazards. OSHA’s NEPs are designed to focus on specific hazards in a particular industry for a three-year period. Continue reading this entry at Littler’s Washington DC Employment Law Update.

Posted in DOL and Other Government Agencies, Workplace Safety, Workplace Violence

Nurse Compensation Antitrust Case Can Proceed, Court Rules

By Rob Wolff

A recent opinion from a federal court in Michigan, Cason-Merenda v. Detroit Medical Center, dramatically underscores the risk of excessive sharing of compensation information between hospitals in the same geographic market, particularly through use of third-party wage surveys that do not satisfy the requirements of the policy statement issued by the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission (“DOJ Guidelines”).

In this blog in August 2010, we reported on five antitrust class actions brought by nurses, in partnership with the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), in Memphis, San Antonio, Albany, Chicago, Detroit, and Arizona, alleging that hospital employers in each of these markets conspired to suppress nurses’ wages in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

In Cason-Merenda, registered nurses (RNs) sued Detroit Medical Center, Henry Ford Health System, Mount Clemens General Hospital, St. John Health, Oakwood Healthcare, Bon Secours Health Services, Trinity Health Corporation and William Beaumont Hospitals for alleged “wage-fixing.” Early in the litigation, the court held that, if proven, the complaint stated an antitrust claim against all defendants. The plaintiffs alleged that the health care providers violated section 1 of the federal Sherman Antitrust Act by: (i) conspiring among themselves and with other local hospitals to hold down the wages of RNs employed by these institutions; and (ii) exchanging compensation-related information among themselves in a manner that reduced competition among Detroit-area hospitals in the wages paid to RNs. Three of the defendants—St. John, Oakwood and Bon Secours—entered into  settlements with the plaintiffs, agreeing in total to pay a maximum of $13,583,475, with various future contingencies that could lower the sum significantly. Continue Reading

Posted in Class Actions, Compensation

Supreme Court Hears Final Day of Oral Argument on Severability, Medicaid Expansion

By Ilyse Schuman

If the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) individual mandate provision is deemed unconstitutional, which parts – if any – of the law can survive without it? That was the first question the Supreme Court considered during the third and final day of oral argument on the constitutionality of the health care law. Members of the Court also debated whether the ACA’s Medicaid expansion – which is expected to add an additional 16 million individuals into the healthcare fold – is an unlawful exercise of Congressional spending power. Continue reading this entry at Littler’s Washington DC Employment Law Update.

Posted in Legislation and Regulations

OFCCP Webinar on Pending Compliance Audits of TRICARE Participants Cancelled

By David Goldstein

As discussed in our March 14 blog post, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) had scheduled a webinar for today on the Status of Pending Compliance Evaluations of Entities that Participate in TRICARE Networks.

That webinar was cancelled today without prior notice or explanation. In response to inquiries about the change, OFCCP’s only response has been that “[i]t has been cancelled. The rescheduled date will be posted on the DOL Events Calendar.”

OFCCP’s position regarding TRICARE as a basis for jurisdiction over medical providers thus remains unclear. Providers with pending audits that were apparently based on an assertion of jurisdiction due to TRICARE participation may want to review the action items outlined in our March 14 blog.

Posted in Legislation and Regulations, OFCCP