Christopher, et al. v. Smithkline Beecham, Corp., d/b/a Glaxosmithkline

1.  Whether deference is owed to the Secretary of Labor’s interpretation of the Fair Labor Standards Act’s outside sales exemption and related regulations.
2.  Whether the Fair Labor Standards Act’s outside sales exemption applies to pharmaceutical sales representatives.

NCLC urged the Supreme Court to affirm the Ninth Circuit’s decision that pharmaceutical sales representatives are exempt from overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Ninth Circuit held that pharmaceutical sales representatives are exempt from the FLSA because they qualify as “outside salesmen.” Petitioner and the Department of Labor argue that pharmaceutical sales representatives do not qualify for the exemption because they do not deal directly with a buyer and do not personally transfer title or obtain a binding commitment to buy. In its amicus brief, NCLC argues the FLSA and its accompanying regulations set forth a functional definition of “outside salesman” and the narrow construction advocated by the petitioner and the Department of Labor is unwarranted. NCLC also argues that the Department of Labor’s litigation position is not entitled to deference because its outside sales regulations merely parrot back the statutory terms. In addition, the Department’s new interpretation of its own regulations contradicts nearly 70 years of settled agency precedent. NCLC previously filed an amicus brief  in support of certiorari, asking the Court to resolve the circuit split between the Ninth and Second Circuits on this question. 

The Supreme Court has not yet decided this case on the merits.

NCLC amicus brief filed 10/17/11. Cert. granted 11/28/11. NCLC merits amicus brief filed 3/26/12.