As an attorney, unfortunately, you are always spotting legal issues in day to day life. The other day, as I sat waiting at the nurse station in my doctor's office, an all-too familiar scenario unfolded: A young, attractive, well-dressed woman with a rolling briefcase, blue tooth in her ear, and black locked bag walked in the door. The box of donuts, bag of candy, and carrying-case with several hot coffees gave her away. The pharmaceutical sales representative dropped off the goodies at the reception desk, re-stocked one of the cabinet drawers with samples of prescription goodies, asked a few questions of the nurses, and then left, indicating she would be back in next week. Instead of wondering where she got her cute shoes that matched her purse like a normal person, I wondered if she was aware of the Supreme Court's recent decision against pharmaceutical sales representatives holding that they were not entitled to overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Pharmaceutical companies directly promote their products to physicians through pharmaceutical sales representatives (PSRs) or "detailers" who try to get physicians to make non-binding promises to prescribe their companies' drugs as appropriate. PSRs are usually highly-compensated; earning both a salary and incentive pay based on the performance of their drug portfolios. For years, PSRs had been classified as exempt outside salespeople not entitled to overtime pay under the FLSA. While that exempt classification had been challenged in courts, the long-standing practice remained in tact. Then, in 2009, the Department of Labor (DOL) filed amicus briefs in the Second and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal, indicating the agency's position that PSRs were non-exempt employees entitled to overtime pay. According to the DOL, PSRs did not qualify for the outside sales exemption because they were not actually selling (i.e. transferring title to tangible property) as defined in the agency's regulations. Interestingly, however, the DOL never initiated any enforcement actions against the employers of PSRs. Conflicting court opinions ensued and the United States Supreme Court finally decided the issue in Christopher et al. v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline issued on June 18, 2012.

The Supreme Court ruled, 5 to 4, in favor of employers and against the PSR plaintiffs. Under the most reasonable interpretation of the DOL's regulations (which were last updated in 2004), selling did not just mean selling or transferring title, it could also include consignments that did not involve a transfer of title. The DOL's position that PSRs were only engaging in promotional work that was incidental to sales made, or to be made, by others, was unconvincing. According to the Court, the FLSA focuses on the "capacity" in which the employee is employed and should be interpreted in favor of a functional, rather than a formal, inquiry based on the employee's responsibilities in the context of the industry in which she works. Since by law and industry practice, PSRs cannot sell drugs directly and must rely on non-binding commitments by doctors to prescribe their companies' drugs, PSRs are making sales in the broadest sense of the term. [As an aside, Justice Alito also observed that the PSRs involved in the case earned, on average, more than $70,000 per year and were "hardly the kind of employees that the FLSA was intended to protect." Perhaps suggesting that the FLSA only protects the exploited and poor, and not the exhausted and rich?] In any event, the Court provided some valuable insight for those of you who have exempt employees, including outside sales employees: Are your employees selling or promoting your services or products? If you are not sure, perhaps you should take a look around to see how others in your industry classify their employees and why they do so. It is worth a second look, which could save your company money and the pitfalls of litigation. As for me, as I was leaving my doctor's office, I saw another well-dressed gentleman, this time with a box of bagels, headed into the building. For a fleeting moment, boy, did I wish I was a doctor ... or maybe, I was just hungry.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.