{"id":1445,"date":"2024-05-20T10:30:20","date_gmt":"2024-05-20T14:30:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=1445"},"modified":"2024-05-20T10:30:20","modified_gmt":"2024-05-20T14:30:20","slug":"plaintiffs-win-conditional-certification-in-gender-bias-lawsuit-against-astrazeneca","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2024\/05\/20\/plaintiffs-win-conditional-certification-in-gender-bias-lawsuit-against-astrazeneca\/","title":{"rendered":"Plaintiffs Win Conditional Certification In Gender Bias Lawsuit Against AstraZeneca"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Christian J. Palacios<\/p>\n

Duane Morris Takeaways:\u00a0 <\/em><\/strong>On May 15, 2024, U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois conditionally certified a collective action<\/a> of female workers employed by AstraZeneca, and approved notice to be sent to female sales representatives who have worked at the pharmaceutical company since December 30, 2018.\u00a0 The case, captioned Jirek, et al., v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, Case No. 1:21-CV-6929 (N.D. Ill., May 14, 2024), represents another significant win for the plaintiffs\u2019 bar, and serves as a reminder of the low legal threshold that plaintiffs have to satisfy in order to conditionally certify a collective action at the initial stage of a lawsuit. This ruling is particularly noteworthy given the fact that collective action definition that has been approved by the Court will include notice to likely thousands of AstraZeneca\u2019s female sales representatives on a nationwide basis (as AstraZeneca employs over 3,500 sales representatives to market its pharmaceutical products, as noted in the beginning of the Court\u2019s order). <\/em><\/p>\n

Background<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Named Plaintiffs Natalie Jirek, Judy Teske, and Natalie Ledinsky brought suit against their former employer, global biopharmaceutical company, AstraZeneca, alleging violations of the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (the \u201cEPA\u201d) for failure to pay a purported collective action of female employees less than their male counterparts for the same or substantially similar work in sales positions within the same pay scale levels. Jirek et al., v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP<\/em>, Case No. 1:21-CV-06929, ECF No. 88 at p. 2 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 26, 2024) (the \u201cConditional Certification Motion\u201d).<\/p>\n

Plaintiffs\u2019 evidence in support of this sex-based wage discrimination claim included 10 online job postings from different locations, a declaration from each of the named-plaintiffs, AstraZeneca\u2019s \u201cCareer Ladder Program Guide\u201d (an internal evaluation guide from July 2010, which, according the AstraZeneca\u2019s declarant, hadn\u2019t been used since 2015), and two unequal pay violations issued by the U.S. Department of Labor\u2019s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Program\u2019s (\u201cOFCCP\u201d) following the OFCCP\u2019s evaluation and analysis of AstraZeneca\u2019s payment structure.\u00a0 According to the conditional certification motion, the OFCCP found that, beginning in September 2016, AstraZeneca failed to comply with Executive Order 11246, which prohibits companies that do over $10,000 in U.S. government business from discriminating against employees on the basis of gender. Id<\/em>.\u00a0 Specifically, the OFCCP found that AstraZeneca discriminated against female employees in \u201cSpecialty Care Sales Representative Level 4 positions\u201d in violation of the Executive Order, after comparing random samplings of men and women and finding that there was a difference in $2,182.07 between the sexes in sales representative positions. As a result of the OFCCP Conciliation Agreement, all the women in the OFCCP\u2019s sampling were entitled to back pay plus interest. The Complaint alleges that despite this, Defendant did not change its discriminatory pay practices until at least 2021.<\/p>\n

The Court\u2019s Decision <\/strong><\/p>\n

On May 14, 2024, Judge Ellis entered an order conditionally certifying the collective action and allowing Plaintiffs to send notice to \u201cfemales employed by AstraZeneca in sales positions as of December 30, 2018.\u201d<\/p>\n

By all accounts, this is a sweeping collective action definition that likely will result in notice to thousands of current and former AstraZeneca female employees within the collective action period.\u00a0 Of the evidence submitted by Plaintiffs\u2019 counsel, the Court noted that it found the similarity in language amongst job postings to be a compelling reason to support Plaintiffs\u2019 assertion that the sales representatives were similarly situated, regardless of location. See<\/em> ECF No. 114, at 12.\u00a0 Although the Court noted that Defendant\u2019s proffered declaration from AstraZeneca\u2019s Vice President of Human Resources attempted to \u201cdiffuse\u201d some of the similarities, the Court reasoned that these factual questions were inappropriate for resolution at the conditional certification stage. Id<\/em>.\u00a0 The Court declined to engage in other \u201ccredibility determinations\u201d that AstraZeneca presented to respond to the evidence Plaintiffs submitted.\u00a0 The Court also observed that the \u201cOFCCP Agreement [gave] Plaintiffs the hook they need[ed] to tie the nationwide body of sales representatives to alleged widespread gender-based pay discrimination.\u201d\u00a0 Id<\/em>. at 14.<\/p>\n

The Court concluded its analysis of Plaintiffs\u2019 conditional certification motion by noting the weakness of Plaintiffs\u2019 declarations, stating, \u201cFrankly, Plaintiffs\u2019 declarations do not say much, primarily regurgitating allegations contained in their already thin amended complaint. But another word for \u2018allegations lifted from a complaint and a repeated verbatim in a declaration\u2019 is \u2018evidence\u2019 and arguably weak evidence is still evidence that the Court \u2013 again \u2013 may not weigh at this stage.\u201d\u00a0 Id<\/em>. at 16.\u00a0 In the same order, the Court asked the parties to continue engaging in negotiations regarding the proposed form of notice, and tolled the statute of limitations for the time period that elapsed between the Court\u2019s decision and the Court\u2019s approval of the notice form.<\/p>\n

Implications <\/strong><\/p>\n

The conditional certification stage of a collective action is a universally recognized lenient standard for plaintiffs to meet. Nevertheless, Judge Ellis\u2019s approval of such a massive collective action at the conditional certification stage is a blow to the defense, and is a reminder of how lenient the evidentiary standard is for the first stage of collective actions. Although it remains to be seen if Plaintiffs will be able to prevail at stage two of the Court\u2019s analysis (after notice has been sent to collective members and discovery has been conducted), for now, Plaintiffs will be able to proceed with their collective action in a significant Equal Pay Act lawsuit.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley, and Christian J. Palacios Duane Morris Takeaways:\u00a0 On May 15, 2024, U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois conditionally certified a collective action of female workers employed by AstraZeneca, and approved notice to be sent to female sales … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Plaintiffs Win Conditional Certification In Gender Bias Lawsuit Against AstraZeneca”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":583,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[37,42],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[30],"class_list":["post-1445","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-class-certification-motions","category-wage-hour-litigation"],"authors":[{"term_id":30,"user_id":583,"is_guest":0,"slug":"classactiondefense","display_name":"Class Action Defense","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2020\/10\/dmlogo.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1445","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/583"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1445"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1445\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1445"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1445"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1445"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=1445"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}