Charge This! A Fired Merck Sales Rep & A Credit Card
11 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // January 11th, 2011 // 9:11 am
Disputes between drugmakers and their sales rep are nothing new, especially in an era when layoffs are de rigeur and whistleblowing is increasingly encouraged. But Merck is now enduring a trial in federal court in Maryland, where a former employee claims she lost her job because she refused to charge expenses to her credit card that were incurred by another rep.
The background: Jennifer Scott was a Merck sales rep in central Maryland from 1992 until January 2008, when she was fired by her supervisor, William Liberato, according to court documents. He allegedly insisted repeatedly that Scott charge the expenses, because the other rep did not yet have a company card, even though she showed him documents indicating this violated company policy.
She also objected to his orders that she and other reps allegedly disparage a study for a rival drug and to take doctors to dinner, which contradicted Merck policies that such activities are best done in clinical settings. Scott then received poor performance ratings, even though she maintained she was Merck’s 13th highest-ranked sales rep nationally. Then, she complained to Merck’s ethics office.
What happened next? In late 2007, Liberato was transferred to a new position, and Merck’s ethics office eventually determined that he acted improperly by forcing the credit card charges and that his promotional exhortations were “inconsistent with company policy,” according to court documents. But even though he was no longer Scott’s supervisor, Merck allowed Liberato to conduct Scott’s
2007 performance evaluation. And guess what? In January 2008, he met with Scott and fired her.
And so Scott filed a lawsuit, claiming her termination violated Merck’s own non-retaliation policy. In defending its actions, the drugmaker subsequently argued that Scott was an at-will employee and denied her assertions that a breach of contract existed. A federal judge didn’t buy that argument and, last November, rejected Merck’s attempt to dismiss the case, which went to trial yesterday (see here).
The lesson - keep your enemies close and your credit cards closer?
Richard Meyer
Thanks for this story Ed. This is just another example of how pharma values sales managers over sales people. To have him conduct her review is nothing short of mind boggling
Condor
Great stuff, here Ed!
Just featured this, at mine. Two notes, if I may:
(1) feel free to use the public domain graphic I just whipped up — including a verified photo of Ms. Scott (also an ex-Schering-Plough employee); and
(2) To that end, this appears to be another legacy Schering-Plough piece of (alleged) malfeasance. More dung, that New Merck is now forced to shovel, courtesy of “Fast” Fred Hassan’s team.
Namaste
Steven Grossman
Assuming that all internal systems failed and there was an act of bad judgment in letting the manager do the performance report….I am still left wondering why Merck would want to litigate this, rather than settle it. What is the point of spending resources and credibility on a case where the company is so clearly in the wrong? Even if the company prevails on the issue of “at will” employment…what message does this send their sales reps? What presumption of good faith can Merck hope to receive the next time an IG, AG or US attorney looks at their conduct? Steven http://www.fdamatters.com
Insider
THese big pharma companies do’t seem to care what IG,AG or US attorneys think. THey will protect their managers at all costs even if they are outrageously wrong. THey have no fear of the government or the laws of this country. I don’t see how it ever got like this probably the lack of enforcement to begin with and the money.
Doc
Big pharma hold the “at will” argument over reps as Damacles sword. “At will” does not mean they can fire you in a retaliatory manner.
I hope Ms. Scott prevails big time and gets big bucks!
Vet Rep
This type of bullying is all much too common in pharma today. Merck knew that their OWN policies had been violated and still backed the “manager”. They talk out of both sides of their mouth. One of the comments on this article stated that they (pharma companies) don’t seem to care what IG, AG or U.S. Attorneys think, and he is right! They simply pay a fine and continue their wrongdoing. These fines in no way deter bad pharma behavior. Merck has been for years, a company that condones this type of behavior on the part of it’s managers. Unfortunately, so do all the rest.
industry insider
Basically it sounds like she got “PIPed”. When that happens these days it’s the first step on your way out. Like they always say, don’t cross the boss, even if he/she is wrong, or you may find yourself on the wrong end of a PIP and on the receiving line for a pink slip.
Deep Throat
The problems on this case actually run deeper. The rep who was hired was basically bankrupt and unable to obtain credit for a card. The Region Director as well as the District Manager knew the situation AFTER the rep had been hired. They both broke company policy by hiring someone without the background check.
The activities of Mr. Liberato were an attempt to cover these tracks as well.
Still can’t believe that the company wouldn’t settle this case. Very ugly business.
KRDW
Good for her! I hope she gets a lot of money!
Insider
YOu can expect that another 20-30 caes occurred but the reps let it go. Most let it go and try to move on. Another point is that all the training of these reps is suppose to cost money so I don’t see why Pfizer and these other comapnies allow their field reps to be treated so poorly. Back in the 80’s we were told it costs 125,000 dollars to train a successful rep. If you can 50 of them because of bad managers, that is a lot of money. I have not heard a single person bring up the costs to train reps.
Condor
UPDATED: Overnight, Ms. Jennifer Scott has been awarded $555,000 in back and front pay, in a federal jury verdict, from the panel that heard her case, in Maryland’s United States District courts.
It is likely New Merck will appeal; it is equally likely it will lose — given all of the above.
Namaste