| 词条 | Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. |
| 释义 |
|Litigants=Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. |ArgueDate=April 16 |ArgueYear=2012 |DecideDate=June 18 |DecideYear=2012 |USVol=567 |USPage=142 |ParallelCitations=132 S. Ct. 2156; 183 L. Ed. 2d 153; 2012 U.S. LEXIS 4657; 19 WH Cases 2d 257; 80 U.S.L.W. 4463 |FullName=Michael Shane Christopher, et al., Petitioners v. Smithkline Beecham Corporation dba GlaxoSmithKline |Docket=11-204 |Prior=Summary judgement granted to Glaxo, No. CV-08-1498-PHX-FJM (D. Ariz. 2009); affirmed, 635 F.3d [https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20110214128 383] (9th Cir. 2011); cert. granted, {{ussc|565|1057|2011|el=no}}. |Subsequent= |OralArguments= |Holding=The petitioners – pharmaceutical sales representatives whose primary duty is to obtain nonbinding commitments from physicians to prescribe their employer’s prescription drugs in appropriate cases – qualify as outside salesmen under the most reasonable interpretation of the Department of Labor’s regulations. |SCOTUS=2010-2016 |Majority=Alito |JoinMajority=Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas |Dissent=Breyer |JoinDissent=Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan |LawsApplied=The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938; 29 U.S.C. §§ 206-207 (2006 ed. and Supp. IV); 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(1) |italic title = force }}Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 567 U.S. 142 (2012), is a US labor law case of the United States Supreme Court.[1] It held that pharmaceutical sales representatives were not eligible for overtime pay.[2] The court ruled in a majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito that sales representatives were classified as "outside salesmen" who are exempt from the Department of Labor's regulations regarding overtime pay.[3] FactsMichael Christopher and Frank Buchanan worked for GlaxoSmithKline, and claimed overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. They argued they were employees under 29 USC § 207(a),[4] while GSK contended they were acting ‘in the capacity of outside salesman’ under § 213(a).[5] In turn 29 C.F.R. § 541.500 defined ‘outside salesman’ as ‘any employee’ whose duty was ‘making sales’ under § 203(k) which said that included ‘any sale, exchange, contract to sell’ and so on.[6] Christopher and Buchanan were sales representatives for around four years from 2003, who marketed to physicians to buy the company’s products. They spent 40 hours a week calling physicians, and another 10 to 20 hours attending events and performing other miscellaneous tasks. Their pay included a salary and bonus pay, based on performance in selling. In a class action lawsuit, they sought time and a half for over 40 hours work.[7] The United States District Court for the District of Arizona granted a judgment in favor of GlaxoSmithKline. After the Department of Labor filed an amicus in a related case in the Second Circuit, they appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in California, which affirmed the lower court's decision.[8][9][10] The plaintiffs then appealed to the Supreme Court.[2] JudgmentSupreme Court held, by a five to four majority, that Christopher and Buchanan were not entitled to overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act, because they were effecting sales within the Act's exception in § 213(a).[5] Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the court, in which Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas joined. Justice Breyer filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan joined. See also
References1. ^{{ussc|name=Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.|volume=567|page=142|year=2012}}. 2. ^1 {{cite news|last=Greenwald|first=Judy|title=Supreme Court to rule on pharmaceutical sales overtime pay|url=http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20111204/NEWS07/312049989?tags=%7C70%7C303|accessdate=28 December 2012|newspaper=Business Insider|date=December 4, 2011}} 3. ^{{cite web|title=Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.|url=http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/christopher-v-smithkline-beecham-corp/|work=scotusblog.com|publisher=SCOTUS Blog|accessdate=28 December 2012}} 4. ^{{USCSub|29|207|a}}. 5. ^1 {{USCSub|29|213|a}}. 6. ^{{CodeFedReg|29|541|500}}. 7. ^{{cite news|last=Todd|first=Susan|title=U.S. Supreme Court rules against drug sales reps in overtime pay challenge|url=http://www.nj.com/business/index.ssf/2012/06/us_supreme_court_rules_against.html|accessdate=28 December 2012|newspaper=The Star-Ledger|date=June 18, 2012}} 8. ^{{cite court |litigants=Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. |vol=635 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=383 |pinpoint= |court=9th Cir. |date=2011 |url=https://www.leagle.com/decision/infco20110214128 |accessdate=2018-08-03 |quote=}} 9. ^{{cite web|last=Weiczorek|first=Sam|title=Argument preview: The "outside salesman" exception to the FLSA’s overtime-pay requirement|url=http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=142535|publisher=SCOTUS Blog|accessdate=29 December 2012}} 10. ^{{cite news|last=Vicini|first=James|title=U.S. top court rules for Glaxo on overtime pay|url=http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-06-18/lifestyle/sns-rt-us-glaxo-overtime-salesbre85h10m-20120618_1_sales-representatives-top-court-rules-overtime-lawsuit|accessdate=29 December 2012|newspaper=Chicago Tribune|date=June 18, 2012}} External links
| case = Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., {{ussc|567|142|2012|el=no}} | cornell =https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-204 | courtlistener =https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/802408/christopher-v-smithkline-beecham-corp/ | googlescholar = https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8691037892334429353 | justia =https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/567/142/ | oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/2011/11-204 | other_source1 = Supreme Court (slip opinion) | other_url1 =https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-204.pdf 5 : United States Supreme Court cases|United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court|United States labor case law|2012 in United States case law|GlaxoSmithKline litigation |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。