SARAH Wellens works as a sales representative for Daiichi Sankyo, a Japan-based pharmaceutical company with about 3,000 employees in the United States. The company hired Ms. Wellens, an experienced sales rep, in September 2009. Upon her hiring, she was assigned to a lower level position and lower compensation tier than similar male employees. Over time, she received lower merit increases, bonuses, and other compensation perks compared to male sales representatives, and was passed over for promotion for less qualified male sales reps. After she became pregnant in 2010 and took maternity leave in 2011, she was again passed over for promotion. While on maternity leave, her male supervisor commented to another male sales employee that Wellens was a “baby-maker.”
This same supervisor regularly praised male sales employees for their accomplishments and supported their careers, but failed to extend the same recognition and support to female sales representatives, especially those with children. Worse, this supervisor made disparaging and offensive remarks regarding pregnancy and motherhood. When Wellens complained about gender and pregnancy discrimination, the supervisor called her a “disgruntled employee.”
Another female sales rep, Kelly Jensen, started working for Daiichi Sankyo in August 2008. Like Ms. Wellens, Ms. Jensen was assigned to a lower level position and lower compensation tier in comparison to similar male employees. She was paid a lower salary, and received lower merit increases, bonuses, and other compensation perks than similar male sales reps. In August 2011, Jensen became pregnant and went on maternity leave. After the male sales leadership team learned of Jensen’s pregnancy, they took away a high performing product from her and gave it to a male sales rep. As a result, the male sales rep’s sales rankings, bonus opportunities, and promotion prospects increased, while Jensen’s sales rankings and employment opportunities decreased.
When they each returned from maternity leave, Wellens’ and Jensen’s regular paychecks were dramatically decreased, allegedly as a post- maternity leave compensation offset. The HR department apparently mismanaged their disability/maternity leave benefits and claimed that Wellens and Jensen were overpaid during their respective maternity leaves.
Wellens and Jensen are but two of six employees who sued the company for gender and pregnancy discrimination, on behalf of themselves and other female employees who were similarly mistreated by the company. The employees claimed that the “glass ceiling” at the company is indisputable, and that while female employees dominate rank-and-file sales positions, male employees control all levels of management, and there are no women at the top executive level. The women accused the company of, among many things, tolerating and cultivating a hostile environment in which women and mothers are openly devalued, and where female employees who complain of gender discrimination are retaliated against and pushed out of the Company.
The federal judge handling the case granted certification, allowing the employees to proceed to trial as a class. Rather than proceed to trial, the company has agreed to pay $8.2 million to settle the class action suit, of which more than $4.6 million will go to the class members.
California has prohibited gender-based wage discrimination since 1949. To bolster existing laws, a new law in 2016 provides that an employer shall not pay any of its employees at wage rates less than the rates paid to employees of the opposite sex for substantially similar work, and performed under similar working conditions. “Substantially similar work” may mean the employees may have different titles or work at different sites but their work are essentially the same. In other words, the lower paid employee doesn’t have to prove that the higher paid employee of the opposite sex has exactly the same job as she (or he) does. If differences in wages exist, the difference must be legally justified based on one or more of the following factors:
a) A seniority system
b) A merit system
c) A system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production
d) A bona fide factor other than sex, such as education, training, or experience.
Discriminated employees will be entitled to damages as well as appropriate equitable relief.
* * *
The Law Offices of C. Joe Sayas, Jr. welcomes inquiries about this topic. All inquiries are confidential and at no-cost. You can contact the office at (818) 291-0088 or visit www.joesayaslaw.com.
* * *
C. Joe Sayas, Jr., Esq. is an experienced trial attorney who has successfully recovered wages and other monetary relief for thousands of employees and consumers. He is named Top Labor & Employment Attorney in California by the Daily Journal, consistently selected as Super Lawyer by the Los Angeles Magazine, and is a member of the Million Dollar-Advocates Forum.