On May 17, 2010, a federal jury in New York decided that Novartis, a Swissheadquartered drug company, was guilty of discriminating against women and should pay the twelve women plaintiffs who testified in the trial \($3.37\) million in compensatory damages.1 Since there were 5,600 women in the class the plaintiffs were arguing on behalf of in the class action lawsuit, the total compensatory damages could have reached \($1\) billion if two-thirds of the plaintiffs had gone to New York and to state their case.2 On May 19, 2010, after further deliberations the jury awarded punitive damages of

\($250\) million, or about \($44,000\) for each of the 5,600 women represented in the class action.3 This was the largest award of punitive damages for any discrimination case in the United States. The amount equals 2.6% of the \($9.5\) billion revenue Novartis reported in 2009. The plaintiff’s lawyers had asked for an award of between 2% and 3% of Novartis’s revenue.4 According to the jury of five women and four men, Novartis “engaged in discrimination against pregnant women, with respect to the terms and conditions of their employment [and] in a pattern or practice of discrimination against the female sales representatives in pay and promotions.”5 Specific instances of discrimination cited at the trial included the following:

• One district manager “showed women pornographic images and invited them to sit on his lap,”6 and the company’s lawyer later indicated that “he wasn’t that bad a manager. He was just terrible with women.”7 Later, the plaintiff’s lawyer commented to the jury that Novartis

“just doesn’t get it. You can’t be a good management if you’re terrible with women.”8

• One woman testified she was told by a male manager to get an abortion.

• Another said she was excluded from professional and social gatherings, including outings on which male colleagues took doctors to strip clubs.”9

• “… women claimed that doctors groped them and made inappropriate comments. The company had a corporate culture that expected its female employees to be ‘available and amenable to sexual advances from the doctors they call on’ and ‘looked the other way’

when female representatives complained about inappropriate doctors.

In one case, a doctor allegedly stuck his tongue in a saleswoman’s ear.

Novartis’ response, according to the women, was to say the doctors were good customers, and not to overreact.

Novartis said the women were lying.”10

• “The suit also claimed that the women were paid less, not promoted into management, and punished if they became pregnant............

Questions:-

1. Was the verdict fair?
2. Will this verdict cause other companies to review for and remedy any systematic discrimination uncovered?
3. How should systemic discrimination be prevented?
4. Were the lawyer’s fees fair?
5. Could this case have been successfully prosecuted if it were not a class action?