On February 11, 2013, a class of current and former female sales employees filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Pay Act, the California Equal Pay Act, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and the California Business and Professions Code against pharmaceutical manufacturer Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. ("DSI"). Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed disparate impact in pay, benefits and promotional opportunities as well as discrimination for pregnancy and family responsibilities. The class, represented by private counsel, asked the court for permanent injunctive relief, the implementation of programs that provide equal employment opportunities for female employees, and damages for gender discrimination in employment.

On April 12, 2013, the defendant moved to transfer venue to the District of New Jersey where its corporate headquarters was located, arguing that since key evidence and witnesses were located there, it would serve the interests of convenience and efficiency. On June 25, 2013, the Court (Judge Claudia Wilken) denied the defendant's motion, stating that it failed "to meet its burden of establishing that the balance of inconvenience weighs heavily in favor of transfer." 2013 WL 3242294.

On May 15, 2014, the Court granted plaintiff's April 28, 2015 motion for conditional certification of class. The court defined the class as:

“Current, former, and future female sales employees in a sales representative and first level district manager role…who worked at any time in Defendant's sales organization in the United States during the applicable liability period.” 2014 WL 2126877.

The parties reached a settlement agreement on October 16, 2015. The classes were settled as:

California Settlement Class:
All female sales force employees who were or would be employed in a sales representative and/or first level district manager role…in DSI's sales organization in California for at least one day between April 16, 2011 and October 16, 2015.

Non–California Settlement Class:
All female sales force employees who were or would be employed in a sales representative and/or first level district manager role…in DSI's sales organization in the United States for at least one day between April 16, 2011 and October 16, 2015.

The plaintiffs agreed to dismiss the action and defendants agreed to make available a settlement fund of $8,200,000. $200,000 of that fund was set aside in order to implement changes to defendant’s employment policies and practices, $4,600,000 was paid into an interest-bearing class settlement fund, and the remaining $3,600,000 was used to reimburse costs and expenses of the litigation, pay class counsel's fees as awarded by the Court, pay service payments to class representatives and lawsuit participants, and pay for the administration of the settlement process.

The interest-bearing class settlement fund was separated into two components. The core component consisted of $3,700,000 that was to be divided among all named plaintiffs and class members for back pay related to the claims asserted in the case. The calculation of individual shares was based on the total workweeks of all class members during the damages periods and workweeks worked by each class member. The claim form component consisting of $926,200 was proportionately divided among named plaintiffs and class members who submit a claim form for alleged gender, pregnancy, and caregiver discrimination related to denial of promotion to District Manager, harassment, retaliation, or emotional distress damages.

In addition to the $8,200,000, the defendant agreed to programmatic relief which included: (1) providing all employees with written or electronic communication of commitment to equal employment opportunities and copies or links to policies addressing non-discrimination, anti-harassment, and anti-retaliation; (2) retaining an independent HR consultant to review its policies and practices and enhance its policies and practices in relation to the issues raised in this lawsuit; (3) posting all District Manager positions with clear posting of the requirements and qualifications for the role; (4) continuing to support the Women's Forum and continue to maintain DSI's mentoring program, including providing the opportunity for the Women's Forum to meet with the HR consultant for at least two hours; (5) working with the HR consultant to develop a training module that will provide guidance to all employees on the appropriate way to treat new mothers returning to work, and create a brief hand-out informing returning mothers of their rights and appropriate procedure to follow if they feel those rights have been violated; (6) establishing an internal compliance panel of senior executives from the HR and Legal departments to meet semi-annually to review compliance with the above requires; and (7) providing certification to class counsel every six months for two years from October 16, 2015 detailing what programmatic changes were actually done. 2015 WL 10090564.

The settlement was finally approved, and the action was dismissed, on February 11, 2016.

The court maintained jurisdiction over the case. There has been no action on the docket since July 12, 2016.

Christianna Kyriacou - 11/21/2013
Cade Boland - 10/29/2017


compress summary