On March 14, 2007, a group of female current and former employees of Sanofi-Aventis US (a pharmaceutical company) filed this class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e) et seq. and New York Executive Law § 296. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, asked the Court for declaratory and injunctive relief, including back and front pay, compensatory, nominal and punitive damages, alleging that the defendant discriminated against female employees. Specifically, the plaintiffs contended that Sanofi-Aventis discriminated with respect to its policies, practices and selection procedures for promotion, a disparate pay scale and differential terms and conditions of employment.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendant subjected female employees to a continuing systemic discrimination which resulted in both a disparate impact and disparate treatment in the areas of promotion, training and performance evaluation, which relied on subjective judgments, and further that the defendant's refusal to establish clear guidelines could not be justified as a business necessity. More specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant pre-selects and 'grooms' male employees for promotions, favorable assignments and training, fails to provide all employees with a consistent and timely notice of job openings and promotional opportunities, requires managers to give permission to an employee to apply for any promotion, and fails to prevent sexual harassment targeted at female employees by male managers. Lastly, the plaintiffs contend that the defendant selectively and disproportionally disciplines and punishes women for minor infractions and retaliates against females who seek relief through human resources.

The defendant moved to dismiss the Complaint but the Court rejected this motion.

In August 2010 the Court approved a settlement of the matter. Plaintiffs got over $15 million in damages; their counsel was awarded over $4.5 million for the settlement. In addition, the settlement included injunctive terms.

Matthew Aibel - 05/06/2008


compress summary