EEOC

[anonymous]

From the EEOC’s press release this morning.

Pharmaceutical Company Denied Obesity Care Specialist a Lateral Transfer Based on Her Age, Federal Agency Charges

NEW YORK – Novo Nordisk, Inc., a manufacturer and distributor of insulin and diabetes care products based in Plainsboro Township, New Jersey, violated federal law when it denied a lateral transfer to a 62-year-old employee because of her age, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.

According to the EEOC’s complaint, the employee, who had been employed by Novo Nordisk as an obesity care specialist since 2015, applied and interviewed for a vacant obesity care specialist position in another territory closer to her residence. The position was ultimately offered to a less-qualified 33-year-old individual from another state. An internal investigation conducted by Novo Nordisk found that the hiring manager violated the company’s anti-discrimination policy when it chose the younger candidate because he wanted someone who would be in the position “long-term.” Despite its finding of age discrimination, Novo Nordisk refused to transfer the 62-year-old employee to the territory for which she had applied.”

 

[anonymous]

From the EEOC’s press release this morning.

Pharmaceutical Company Denied Obesity Care Specialist a Lateral Transfer Based on Her Age, Federal Agency Charges

NEW YORK – Novo Nordisk, Inc., a manufacturer and distributor of insulin and diabetes care products based in Plainsboro Township, New Jersey, violated federal law when it denied a lateral transfer to a 62-year-old employee because of her age, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed today.

According to the EEOC’s complaint, the employee, who had been employed by Novo Nordisk as an obesity care specialist since 2015, applied and interviewed for a vacant obesity care specialist position in another territory closer to her residence. The position was ultimately offered to a less-qualified 33-year-old individual from another state. An internal investigation conducted by Novo Nordisk found that the hiring manager violated the company’s anti-discrimination policy when it chose the younger candidate because he wanted someone who would be in the position “long-term.” Despite its finding of age discrimination, Novo Nordisk refused to transfer the 62-year-old employee to the territory for which she had applied.”

Good for her. Once again, poor leadership making poor decisions. Par for the course at novo.

 

[anonymous]

I love this company, but I hope she gets millions.

 

[anonymous]

Unfortunately, age discrimination is more common than you think throughout Novo.

 

[anonymous]

Unfortunately, age discrimination is more common than you think throughout Novo.

To the person who filed vs. Novo Nordisk:

Please stick to your guns on this. Don’t concede.

I had a very good case vs. NNI when my position was ‘eliminated’. I had dirt, rock-solid, in writing, and I settled for the normal severance bc I had another job and just didn’t want the hassle.
A few months later, a very senior attorney left the company and had contacted me for something personal, non-business. They casually asked ‘hey what happened with your case? I know they were really concerned about [the dirt] bc they asked my opinion …
The former NNI attorney said ‘oh I thought they would have offered you half of what you were asking as a start’.
Let’s just say that ‘half of what I was asking for’ was close to 500k. My bad.

Take it to the mat!

 

[anonymous]

Unfortunately, age discrimination is more common than you think throughout Novo.

I love that people are acting appalled by this. As if a court ruling in favor of a complaintant versus a corporation proves anything. This is just another case of someone not getting what they want, so they sue the company. Courts side with individuals over companies all the time. This is complete garbage and is just a cash grab by a former employee. This case is just like the one where the lady got fired for multiple compliance violations and then sued the company for sexual harassment b/c she said her manager liked to stare at her ass. It’s all BS. Good for this guy for getting some money, but that doesn’t actually mean anything.

 

[anonymous]

I love that people are acting appalled by this. As if a court ruling in favor of a complaintant versus a corporation proves anything. This is just another case of someone not getting what they want, so they sue the company. Courts side with individuals over companies all the time. This is complete garbage and is just a cash grab by a former employee. This case is just like the one where the lady got fired for multiple compliance violations and then sued the company for sexual harassment b/c she said her manager liked to stare at her ass. It’s all BS. Good for this guy for getting some money, but that doesn’t actually mean anything.

Doesn’t say she won the lawsuit. Did she?
Yes NN is discriminating based on age all of the time. They try to figure out how to disguise it but it certainly happens. Watch out folks.

 

[anonymous]

Doesn’t say she won the lawsuit. Did she?
Yes NN is discriminating based on age all of the time. They try to figure out how to disguise it but it certainly happens. Watch out folks.

Even better. A disgruntled employee FILED a lawsuit. What a shocker!

 

[anonymous]

does novo even relo existing psr’s to another territory?Not buying this is an age problem. From a budget perspective losing a 62 year old, who probably has excellent relationships in existing territory move to a fresh territory, where this person knows nobody or the area already doesn’t make sense for growth. Makes financial sense to hire someone already in territory/knows the area/can make better connections.

rep was arguing hard skills qual when the manager was trying to fulfill the soft skill needs of the territory.

Also what if budget called for hiring a fresh, new employee and relo PLUS hiring a new replacement increases the budget.

corporate garbage to try to pit boomers against millennials. As a millennial none of the stereotypes ring true since I've been in the workforce-genuinely enjoy learning and working with boomers.

I love that people are acting appalled by this. As if a court ruling in favor of a complaintant versus a corporation proves anything. This is just another case of someone not getting what they want, so they sue the company. Courts side with individuals over companies all the time. This is complete garbage and is just a cash grab by a former employee. This case is just like the one where the lady got fired for multiple compliance violations and then sued the company for sexual harassment b/c she said her manager liked to stare at her ass. It’s all BS. Good for this guy for getting some money, but that doesn’t actually mean anything.

 

[anonymous]

Since people over 40 are “protected” class would like to see quotas for hiring and promoting over 40 agepeople like there is quotas for other protected class.

 

[anonymous]

does novo even relo existing psr’s to another territory?Not buying this is an age problem. From a budget perspective losing a 62 year old, who probably has excellent relationships in existing territory move to a fresh territory, where this person knows nobody or the area already doesn’t make sense for growth. Makes financial sense to hire someone already in territory/knows the area/can make better connections.

rep was arguing hard skills qual when the manager was trying to fulfill the soft skill needs of the territory.

Also what if budget called for hiring a fresh, new employee and relo PLUS hiring a new replacement increases the budget.

corporate garbage to try to pit boomers against millennials. As a millennial none of the stereotypes ring true since I've been in the workforce-genuinely enjoy learning and working with boomers.

Your post is laughable. And No wonder —did millennials even take English in school.

 

[anonymous]

Haha. Agree