Christopher v. SmithKline (2011)
- Docket
- 11-204
- Decided
- 2011-01-01
Summary
Question: 1. Must Glaxo and the courts defer to the Secretary of Labor's definition of "outside salesman" under the Fair Labor Standards Act? 2. Does the Secretary of Labor's definition of "outside salesman" apply to pharmaceutical sales representatives? Conclusion: No, Yes. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., writing for a 5-4 majority, affirmed the Ninth Circuit. The Supreme Court held that pharmaceutical sales representatives are "outside salesmen" under the FLSA. The Court did not defer to the Secretary's interpretation of the statute because it is directly contrary to the long held industry practice of treating PSRs as exempt. To follow the Secretary's interpretation now would unfairly burden the employers with liability for conduct that occurred long before the Secretary announced that interpretation. The text of the statute also supports the holding that PSRs are outside salesmen. Justice Stephen G. Breyer dissented, arguing that PSRs do not actually sell anything because they merely obtain non-binding agreements from doctors to prescribe a certain drug when appropriate. If the PSRs do not make sales, then they cannot be outside salesmen under the FLSA. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, and Justice Elena Kagan joined in the dissent.