On May 17, 2010, a jury in New York federal court delivered a unanimous verdict against Novartis Pharmaceuticals, finding that the corporation had discriminated against female employees with respect to pay, promotions and pregnancy. Although the more than $250 million resulting from that verdict was significant, even more important were the 23 pages of changes to policies and procedures that the company later agreed to in order to settle the case. However, had the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Dukes v. Wal-Mart been the law of the land in 2010, the changes at Novartis never would have happened.
Any time an employee decides to litigate a case against his employer, the situation is akin to David versus Goliath. Jobs (good, bad or otherwise) are scarce, especially in this difficult economic market. Speaking out against the person who signs your paycheck requires a good deal of courage. And in today’s world, corporations are often national or even global in scale — and have resources that employees just don’t have.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
