Twelve female Novartis employees filed the lawsuit, alleging they received less pay than their male counterparts, were promoted less frequently, and had to endure a hostile work environment. The women sought damages from $190 million to $285 million, calculated as two to three percent of the company’s $9.5 billion revenues it made in 2009.

The jury, comprised of five women and four men, agreed, opening the door for more than 5,500 other female employees of Novartis’ United States operations. The multinational company is based in Basel, Switzerland.

Additional employees applying for compensation under the ruling will likely be processed by a court-appointed special master, who will determine their damages on an individual basis. U.S. District Court Judge Colleen McMahon will decide a lump sum for back pay, lost benefits, and adjusted wages that will distributed to the plaintiffs. Attorneys handling the case said they were seeking $37 million to cover back pay.

During testimony, an attorney for the original plaintiffs told jurors that “to Novartis, discrimination is one big joke.”

“There was an old boys’ network at Novartis running rampant. The discrimination continues to this very day. Absolutely nothing was ever done to help women at Novartis,” the attorney said.

Evidence brought before the court included the behavior and actions of one district manager who plaintiffs claimed was especially abusive. The man would show them pornographic pictures and ask them to sit on his lap, yet he wasn’t fired until two years after the complaint was filed in 2004.

“He wasn’t that bad a manager. He was just terrible with women,” said Novartis attorney Richard Schnadig – a phrase that helped the jury see that the company and its attorney still had no clue what it had done wrong.

Yet Schnadig urged the jury not to react with emotion after hearing damaging testimony.

“The company is taking everything you said to heart and is going to change,” he said. “Be fair to us.”

Novartis attorneys say they will appeal the verdict.

SOURCE: Fair Labor Standards Act › Jury orders Novartis to pay $250 million for sex discrimination

The plaintiffs allege that Wal-Mart, the world’s largest private employer, paid female employees less than their male coworkers, promoted females less frequently than men, and made them wait longer for promotions than men when they were given the opportunity to move up.

The original lawsuit was filed by Wal-Mart employee Betty Dukes in 2001. Dukes and six other plaintiffs contend that Wal-Mart routinely passed women up for consideration for management positions, keeping them in lower level jobs such as cashiers with little hope of promotion. One plaintiff said she was unqualified to manage because she couldn’t stack 50-pound bags of dog food.

The plaintiffs moved to form the class action in 2001, extending the case to all women who had worked at Wal-Mart since 1998. A trial judge certified the case as a class action in 2004.

The suit will now cover the claims of women who have worked at Wal-Mart since June 2001. A lower court will determine whether additional women who were employed by Wal-Mart between 1998 and 2001 may join the class action.

Today’s sharply divided 6-5 ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco left Wal-Mart considering a final appeal to the United States Supreme Court. The retail giant has fought the lawsuit vigorously since 2001, arguing the group of women represented by the class action would be too large and unmanageable and that cases involving gender discrimination should be tried individually.

An 11-member panel that heard Wal-Mart’s arguments last year disagreed. “Although the size of this class action is large, mere size does not render a case unmanageable,” the court stated.

Given the potential number of plaintiffs in this class action lawsuit, a ruling against Wal-Mart could cost the retailer tens of billions of dollars.

SOURCE: Fair Labor Standards Act › Sex discrimination class action against Wal-Mart may proceed

The fine was the first one issued by the Wage and Hour Division under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 – a statute that raised the penalty to $50,000 for each violation of child labor laws resulting in death or injury. Subsequent violations of the same laws result in maximum fines of $100,000.

The demolition company must also pay more than $3,000 for failing to keep accurate records, which investigators believe may have contributed to the accident. Additionally, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration cited the company nearly $24,000 in penalties for seven safety violations at the work site where Luis Montoya, 15, was killed.

Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, herself a longtime crusader for workers’ rights said “the federal rules governing the employment of minors are clear, and the consequences for failing to comply are serious.”

“Young workers must be employed safely and legally,” she said.

The Wage and Hour Division lists on its web site industries that it deems too unsafe for workers younger than 18. “Occupations involved in wrecking, demolition, and shipbreaking operations” are among those trades listed as unfit for minors.

The Wage and Hour Division’s investigation of the company also uncovered extensive violations of FLSA overtime pay regulations. The agency cited Demon Demo on violations involving 126 workers and ordered it to pay $108,869 in back wages.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution suggested that Montoya’s family may seek legal action against the demolition company. “They don’t feel fully vindicated,” the family’s attorney told the AJC. “This is a company that received a $50,000 fine, yet this is the third time this company has been in violation.”

SOURCE: Fair Labor Standards Act › Teenager’s death leads to multiple FLSA and OSHA fines for Georgia company

In his decision, the arbitrator said that the case “demonstrates action that went beyond mere negligence.”

“This overtime ruling against the EEOC is vindication that the ‘model employer’ should not be exploiting the dedication of its hardworking employees,” said Gabrielle Martin, president of the National Council of EEOC Locals.

In the Washington Post report, acting EEOC Chairman, Stuart J. Ishimaru, said that “Going forward, the agency will examine its overtime practices and make any necessary changes.”

“We want to do overtime right,” he added.

The EEOC employees union filed a grievance in 2006, alleging that employees received compensatory time rather than overtime pay. The disputed practice, which stretches back to 2003 and continues to this day, represents a violation of FLSA rules. The situation appeared even uglier when the arbitrator found that employees almost never requested comp time. In effect, all the extra hours employees worked amounted to neither extra time nor extra pay.

“With rare exception in this record, the concept of ‘requesting’ compensatory time was a fiction,” the arbitrator said in his decision.

According to the Washington Post, the EEOC is dealing with an “unprecedented level” of discrimination charges, up 26 percent from 2006. Concurrent with the rise in complaints is a drop in EEOC staff, which has withered 25% in the last 8 years,effectively leaving less people to deal with more work.

SOURCE: Fair Labor Standards Act › EEOC violated FLSA rules for years