Novartis Rep Wins Pregnancy Discrimination Suit
17 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // March 11th, 2010 // 8:43 am
A former Novartis sales rep was awarded more than $579,000 by a federal court jury that decided she suffered retaliation for taking maternity leave covered by the Family and Medical Leave Act. Mary Kate Breeden worked in Virginia for eight years promoting transplant drugs when she was fired in January 2008, after her territory had been reduced as part of an alleged overhaul. Breeden contended the move was discriminatory, partly because she underwent IVF treatments and was under pressure to ensure related medical appointments didn’t interfere with her job (lawsuit and order).
Whether this could or should be seen as an isolated incident will likely be a matter of dispute. A class-action lawsuit alleging the drug maker discriminated against thousands of female sales reps is headed to trial this year. The suit was filed in 2004 by 19 current or former female reps, and was certified as a class action representing 5,600 female employees, who allege Novartis subjected them to sexual discrimination in pay, job evaluations, promotional opportunities and pregnancy-related matters, along with sexual harassment and retaliation (back story here and here).
Lisa Van Syckel
BRAVO!!!
C. Delong
It is all about the numbers. When it suits the company, you are at their mercy. I am not surprised.
Peggy Ross
This is very pleasant music to my ears. The more employees who challenge their companies unlawful behaviour, the more likely it will be that companies will start to respect both the law and employee rights and wellbeing.
A big well done to Mary Kate - it isn’t easy taking on a multi-national but it is achievable!
pharmavet
I have no problem with either legitimate maternity or paternity, and I don’t mind companies paying for it. I do have a problem with the “stretch-out” or “eternity leave” as abused by some. This consists of
1) regular 12 week maternity leave
2) suffering some “pregnancy complication”, which gives an additional 12 weeks of STD,
3) a six month “bridge” period, where they get to work 1/2 time
4) finally return to work.
Thus a regular maternity leave is stretched to a full year before returning to full work. Why do companies allow this? Quite simply, they compete to be listed in the “100 Best Companies for Working Mothers”. These lists are widely circulated in the popular press, and it is no coincidence that companies on this list also have the most generous benefits, as per above.
Josh
Pharmavet are you sure about the additional 12 weeks? My wife works for a non-pharmaceutcial division of a Big Pharma and was given the standard 8 weeks at her company. She was also going to take an additional 4 weeks that was going to be on her own dime. She had some complications and was given the full 12 weeks paid due to the complications. I am not sure what companies give more time than that….as her company is on the list of best companies to work for.
I wonder what complications these other people are having to get an additional 12 weeks. Her complications were mainly due to almost dying after her c-section (atonic uterus not clamping down, pulmonary embolism, postpartum cadiomyopathy, etc.). I don’t think it gets much worse than that….
pharmavet
Josh, your wife’s problems are legit. I’m referring to women who conveniently develop postpartum “depression” shortly before RTW, and get a note from their PCP to legitimize it.
pharmavet
I know personally that gender discrimination is not pervasive at Novartis. My wife held a Director level role at company HQ during the time period covered by these lawsuits. She was highly compensated, well respected, and outperformed and outearned many of her male counterparts. Novartis reaches out to recruit highly qualified women from all over the country, as she was recruited from a similar position at Eli Lilly.
So let’s not paint here with too broad a brush.
harpy
No broader than the fact that Novartis was judged to have retaliated against one of their own sales reps who took a legitimate and legal leave of absence from work.
Or was the broad brush in reference to your disparaging generalizations of those “other” women who selfishly abuse FMLA by developing post-partum depression?
pharmavet
Harpy, it’s not a generalization, and therefore not disparaging. Postpartum Depression is one of the most overly diagnosed and one of the most common reasons that women take time off from work after childbirth You don’t have to take my word for it. Just ask any Human Resources Manager who deals with disability claims. Same goes for the ever-escalating use of “job stress” as reason for comp/disability claims. Working in Pharma has always been an extremely stressful job. You know what they say about if you can’t stand the heat…
Josh
Move to Alaska?
Former Pharma Marketing Director
So, I have to say that I hope this changes with health care reform.
In some if not all provinces in Canada women are entitled to a 12 month leave of absence with a guarantee of a return to their job, maybe not exactly the position they held when they left, but at least a job within the company at an equal rate to what they left.
Additionally, they can share the leave with their husbands, for example they can take 6 months leave and their husbands can take the other six month leave.
I find this fair and reasonable and we should all get in line, how wonderful it would be to have this same plan here in the US. Parents actually being able to stay with their children during the first most vulnerable year of their life.
These are our children we are talking about our precious heritage. DO we not owe them all the chance to raised and loved and nurtured by their parents first?
I could never accept the 8 weeks maternity leave. What dis respect we show ourselves with this policy.
Hope it changes….
No wonder people “fake” postpartum depression - who wouldn’t 8 weeks is too soon to return to work when you have a chance to make a profound difference on such a small human being..
karen
I was working for “BMS american company rated the best company for working moms” , i was forced to sign resignation when i was 6 months pregnant ( or they wouldnt give me my indemnity which was peanuts ). they even stopped my medical insurance !!!
under the umbrella that they are closing their offices in the country : they even did not give me money to pay for the hospital !!!!
pharmavet
FPMD, Canada and Europe have more generous leave time because it legally mandated and at least partly subsidized by the government. In the US, unless you live in a state with some limited subsidies, you pretty much get what
the company allows.
harpy
pharmavet - you said, “I’m referring to women who conveniently develop postpartum “depression” shortly before RTW, and get a note from their PCP to legitimize it”
I don’t know what dictionary you’re using, but that counts as disparaging in mine. And as far as generalization goes, we have a proposition asserting something to be true either of all members of a certain class or of an indefinite part of that class. Since your argument is based on “women who conveniently develop postpartum “depression” shortly before RTW,” then that fits too.
And if, as you point out, post-partum depression is “one of the most common reasons that women take time off from work after childbirth” one might think there could be some validity to the claim. However, your use of scare quotes around depression makes me think you’re not a great believer in mental illness. Unless you’re implying a disbelief in post-partum depression in particular.
But it doesn’t really matter since none of this has anything to do with the post in which Novartis was found guilty of retaliating against an employee for taking a legal leave-of-absence.
pharmavet
Thanks for the semantics lesson, Harpy. perhaps I should have reveived my Doctorate in English instead of Biochemistry. Actually, I quit dealing with the hassles of pregnancy leave a long time ago. I was also hamstrung by the EEOC laws that prevented me from asking an interviewee whether she intends to have a family while working. I made life easier for myself by hiring mostly men or women that I thought were beyond their childbearing years. I hired a few women of childbearing years just to keep the numbers looking good.
I’ll save you the trouble of describing what you think that makes me. I’ve conveniently provided the link below.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny
Pharmarep
Pharmavet
1. Nothing like admitting that you discriminated in your own hiring practices quote “I made life easier for myself by hiring mostly men or women that I though were beyond their childbearing years”. I’m 45 with no children and I suppose you would have overlooked me for a position due to your generic broad beliefs. How can anyone take anything you say with credibility when you admit yourself that you engaged in some form of discrimination in your own hiring practices?
2. It is easy to make a claim of “women conveniently developing post-partum depression shortly before RTW”, but as someone with a degree in biochemistry, one would think that you would engage in citing your clinical sources that must have been studied and or published on this subject for such a claim to be valid. If your claim has merit, then you know there would be data on the subject.
3. Discrimination, as you are aware, can be varied at different levels within an organization. What your wife may have experienced a certain division at a certain level within Novartis, may be completely different that other same sex individuals may have experienced in other divisions at different levels within the organization. I myself have been in the pharma business over 15 years, with several big pharma companies, including Novartis. You absolutely cannot make the blanket claims and statements that you have made with any real validity. One can easily tell your a rigid person who harbors certain anoymosities towards others, and by your own admittance acknowledged you engaged in hiring discrimination. That does not say much about your character, biochemistry degree or not.
A woman
Pharmavet, I so glad your wife didn’t have the same experiences as Mary Kate. If she had, your rant maybe different. Going through a legal process like this opens your entire life up for everyone to see, including your medical history. In fact, the process makes it not worth the money and more about standing up for what is right. I’m sure after full disclosure of the case, Mary Kate’s jury awarded her appropiately. Let’s not generalize to all women taking off after having a baby.