Supreme Court Notebook

Court says no overtime pay for drug sales reps By Mark Sherman Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court has ruled that sales representatives for pharmaceutical companies do not qualify for overtime pay under federal law, a big victory for the drug industry. In a 5-4 decision Monday, the court's conservative majority concluded that the roughly 90,000 people who try to persuade doctors to prescribe certain drugs to their patients are not covered by the federal law governing overtime pay. Two salesmen who once worked for drug maker GlaxoSmithKline filed a class-action lawsuit claiming that they were not paid for the 10 to 20 hours they worked each week on average outside the normal business day. Their jobs required them to meet with doctors in their offices, but also to attend conventions, dinners, even golf outings. Many sales jobs are exempt from overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. But unlike typical salespeople who often work on commission, pharmaceutical sales representatives cannot seal a deal with doctors. Federal law, in fact, forbids any binding agreement by a doctor to prescribe a specific drug. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, said that the drug sales reps' "end goal was not merely to make physicians aware of the medically appropriate uses of a particular drug. Rather, it was to convince physicians actually to prescribe the drug in appropriate cases." Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas joined with Alito. In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer said the sales reps do not consummate sales and so should be allowed to claim overtime. Breyer referred to the employees not as salesmen, but as "detailers," as they are known in the industry. "The detailer's work, in my view, is more naturally characterized as involving 'promotional activities designed to stimulate sales...made by someone else,'" Breyer said, quoting from federal regulations. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor signed Breyer's dissent. The Obama administration backed the sales reps and argued that they do not make sales, as the law requires for a job to be exempt from overtime. The case is Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 11-204. Justices side with state in DNA case By Mark Sherman Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Monday upheld a rape conviction over objections that the defendant did not have the chance to question the reliability of the DNA evidence that helped convict him. The court's 5-4 ruling went against a run of high court decisions that bolstered the right of criminal defendants to confront witnesses against them. Justice Clarence Thomas provided the margin of difference in the case to uphold the conviction of Sandy Williams, even though Thomas has more often sided with defendants on the issue of cross-examination of witnesses. The case grew out of a DNA expert's testimony that helped convict Williams of rape. The expert testified that Williams' DNA matched a sample taken from the victim, but the expert played no role in the tests that extracted genetic evidence from the victim's sample. And no one from the company that performed the analysis showed up at the trial to defend it. The court has previously ruled that defendants have the right to cross-examine the forensic analysts who prepare laboratory reports used at trial. In this case, the state of Illinois said that the DNA expert who matched the two samples played the critical role -- even though she did not actually extract the DNA samples and conduct the tests -- and that she testified and was subjected to a thorough cross-examination. The court split into three factions in this case. Four justices -- Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Stephen Breyer and Anthony Kennedy -- joined in a strong opinion that would give prosecutors more leeway in using lab reports without having to put the analysts who prepared them on the witness stand. Four others -- Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan, Antonin Scalia and Sonia Sotomayor -- said the Constitution does not permit the use of the lab analysis that helped convict Williams. In the middle was Thomas, writing only for himself, but controlling the outcome of the case. Thomas said the lab report used in this case could not be considered testimonial and so doesn't fall under the Constitution's cross-examination requirement. The report "lacks the solemnity of an affidavit or deposition, for it is neither a sworn nor a certified declaration of fact," Thomas said. It may be used at trial, but the judge who presided at Williams' bench trial in the absence of a jury did not have to lend it much credence. In her opinion, Kagan said the court muddied the issue in this case. The importance of the decision "is, to be frank, who knows what," she said. The Obama administration, 42 states and several local prosecutors had warned that a ruling for Williams could make it much harder for scientific experts to testify about their professional opinions, a common occurrence at criminal trials. A brief filed by the Manhattan district attorney and New York City medical examiner warned that as many as 12 employees might have to testify to allow for the use of DNA profiles. The case is Williams v. Illinois, 10-8505. Tribes must be fully reimbursed WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court says the government must fully reimburse Native American tribes for money they spent on federal programs. The federal government had agreed to fully reimburse money tribes spent on programs like law enforcement, environmental protection and agricultural assistance, but Congress capped the amount of money earmarked for that reimbursement. The tribes sued, and the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver said the money must be fully reimbursed. The high court on Monday said the Ramah Navajo Chapter and other Native American tribes must get their money back. Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote the majority opinion for Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Elena Kagan. Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Samuel Alito dissented. Published: Wed, Jun 20, 2012