Eli Lilly and Company (LLY)

In April 2006, three former employees and one current employee filed a complaint against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana (Welch, et al. v. Eli Lilly and Company, filed April 20, 2006) alleging racial discrimination. Plaintiffs have since amended their complaint twice, and the lawsuit currently involves 145 individual plaintiffs as well as the national and local chapters of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Although the case was originally filed as a putative class action, in September 2009, plaintiffs withdrew their request for class certification. We believe these claims are without merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously.

 

We have also been named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York (Schaefer-LaRose, et al. v. Eli Lilly and Company, filed November 14, 2006) claiming that our pharmaceutical sales representatives should have been categorized as “non-exempt” rather than “exempt” employees, and claiming that the company owes them back wages for overtime worked, as well as penalties, interest, and attorneys’ fees. Other pharmaceutical industry participants face identical lawsuits. The case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana in August 2007. In February 2008, the Indianapolis court conditionally certified a nationwide opt-in collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act of all current and former employees who served as a Lilly pharmaceutical sales representative at any time from November 2003 to the present. As of the close of the opt-in period, fewer than 400 of the over 7,500 potential plaintiffs elected to participate in the lawsuit. In September 2009, the District Court granted our motion for summary judgment with regard to Ms. Schaefer-LaRose’s claims and ordered the plaintiffs to demonstrate why the entire collective action should not be decertified within 30 days. Plaintiffs have filed a motion for reconsideration of the summary judgment decision and have also opposed decertification, and all other matters have been stayed pending a ruling on these issues. If summary judgment is not reconsidered, we expect plaintiffs will appeal the ruling to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. We believe this lawsuit is without merit and are prepared to defend against it vigorously.

 

In September 2009, one of the opt-in plaintiffs in Schaefer-LaRose, et al v. Eli Lilly and Company filed an action in the Superior Court for Alameda County, California, alleging on behalf of a putative class that the company violated California’s Business and Professions Code by failing to pay sales representatives overtime and by not providing them with rest and meal breaks under California law. After removing the lawsuit to the federal district court in the Northern District of California, the parties agreed, and the Court ordered, that the lawsuit would be stayed pending a decision from the 9th Circuit in one of the other several lawsuits addressing the exempt status of pharmaceutical sales representatives. We believe the lawsuit is without merit and are prepared to defend against it vigorously.

 

We have been named in a lawsuit brought by the Labor Attorney for 15th Region in the Labor Court of Paulinia, State of Sao Paulo, Brazil, alleging possible harm to employees and former employees caused by exposure to heavy metals. We have also been named in approximately 50 lawsuits filed in the same court by individual former employees making similar claims. We have also been named, along with several other companies, in a lawsuit filed by certain of these individuals in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on April 21, 2009, alleging possible harm caused by exposure to pesticides related to our former agricultural chemical manufacturing facility in Cosmopolis, Brazil. We believe these lawsuits are without merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously.

 

 

In April 2006, three former employees and one current employee filed a putative class action against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana (Welch, et al. v. Eli Lilly and Company, filed April 20, 2006) alleging racial discrimination. Plaintiffs have since amended their complaint twice, adding to the lawsuit a total of 154 individual plaintiffs as well as the national and local chapters of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Under the current schedule, the plaintiffs are to file their class certification motion in March 2009. We believe this lawsuit is without merit and are prepared to defend against it vigorously.

 

We have also been named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York (Schaefer-LaRose, et al., filed November 14, 2006) claiming that our pharmaceutical sales representatives should have been categorized as “non-exempt” rather than “exempt” employees, and claiming that the company owes them back wages for overtime worked, as well as penalties, interest, and attorneys fees. Other pharmaceutical industry participants face identical lawsuits. The case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana in August 2007. In February 2008, the Indianapolis court conditionally certified a nationwide opt-in collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act of all current and former employees who served as a Lilly pharmaceutical sales representative at any time from November 2003 to the present. As of the close of the opt-in period, fewer than 400 of the over 7,500 potential plaintiffs elected to participate in the lawsuit. We believe this lawsuit is without merit and are prepared to defend against it vigorously.

 

We have been named in a lawsuit brought by the Labor Attorney for 15^th Region in the Labor Court of Paulinia, State of Sao Paulo, alleging possible harm to employees and former employees caused by exposure to heavy metals. We have also been named in approximately 50 lawsuits filed in the same court by individual former employees making similar claims. We believe these lawsuits are without merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously.

 

 

In April 2006, three former employees and one current employee
filed a putative class action against the company in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
(Welch, et al. v. Eli Lilly and Company, filed
April 20, 2006) alleging racial discrimination.
Plaintiffs have since amended their complaint twice, adding to
the lawsuit a total of 154 individual plaintiffs as well as the
national and local chapters of the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Under the current
schedule, the plaintiffs are to file their class certification
motion in March 2009. We believe this lawsuit is without merit
and are prepared to defend against it vigorously.

 

We have also been named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York
(Schaefer-LaRose, et al., filed November 14,
2006) claiming that our pharmaceutical sales
representatives should have been categorized as
“non-exempt” rather than “exempt” employees,
and claiming that the company owes them back wages for overtime
worked, as well as penalties, interest, and attorneys fees.
Other pharmaceutical industry participants face identical
lawsuits. The case was transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana in August 2007. In
February 2008, the Indianapolis court conditionally certified a
nationwide opt-in collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of all current and former employees who served as
a Lilly pharmaceutical sales representative at any time from
November 2003 to the present. As of the close of the opt-in
period, fewer than 400 of the over 7,500 potential plaintiffs
elected to participate in the lawsuit. We believe this lawsuit
is without merit and are prepared to defend against it
vigorously.

 

We have been named in a lawsuit brought by the Labor Attorney
for
15^th Region

in the Labor Court of Paulinia, State of Sao Paulo, alleging
possible harm to employees and former employees caused by
exposure to heavy metals. We have also been named in
approximately 50 lawsuits filed in the same court by individual
former employees making similar claims. We believe these
lawsuits are without merit and are prepared to defend against
them vigorously.