Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. (11-204)

argument 11-204

Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 2m 5 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 4 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the legal definition of an “outside salesman” under the Fair Labor Standards Act?

John G. Roberts 0:01

We'll hear argument this morning in case eleven two oh four, Christopher versus Smithline Beecham. Mr. Goldstein.

Mr. Goldstein 0:08

Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the court. In the Fair Labor Standards Act, Congress directed the Secretary of Labor to quote unquote define and delimit the statutes outside salesman exemption. By regulation the Secretary provided that an outside salesman is one who makes sales rather than promoting sales by others. In further guidance, the Secretary elaborated that non exempt promotion includes includes either one a conversation where there can be no commitment, or two, one where there will be no exchange with the employer. Now everyone agrees that a pharmaceutical detailer engages in promotion, they tout drugs to doctors. Everyone agrees that there can't be a commitment to issue a prescription Everyone agrees that a prescription is not an exchange with a pharmaceutical company.

Mr. Goldstein 0:51

But nonetheless, the respondent argues that pharmaceutical detailers sell drugs directly to doctors as a matter of law. They say that follows from the fact that the Secretary's regulation incorporates the definition of sale in the F L S A. Which is in the blue brief. in the appendix At page one. That definition, which is Section two hundred and three K provides it's the second provision on the page, sale or sell, includes any sale, Exchange. contract to sell, consignment for sale, shipment for sale or other disposition What you will not find in that language is anything that contradicts the two points that the Secretary has made, which is that there has to be a commitment. or that at the very least there has to be an exchange with the employer.

Samuel A. Alito 1:41

Well is that consistent with The government's argument. They argue, quote, an employee does not make a sale for purposes of the outside salesman exemption unless he actually transfers title to the property at issue. The statute refers to a consignment for sale. When that occurs, does the consign lawyer actually transfer title to the property at issue?

Mr. Goldstein 2:06

Uh it is an arrangement for a transfer of title and that's why it's critical that it says a consignment for sale, the sale being the transfer of title. But in all events This case is not a fight about transferring title or some lesser form of exchange because there's no exchange between the doctor

Samuel A. Alito 2:20

I understand that, but I would appreciate an answer to my question. Is the government's position consistent with the reference to consignment for sale. When a consignment for sale occurs, is there a transfer of title?

Mr. Goldstein 2:32

There is an agreement for a transfer of title.

Samuel A. Alito 2:34

Is there a a transfer of title?

Mr. Goldstein 2:41

The government says the definition of sale includes a transfer of title. And so all I'm pointing out, if I could just go back to the definition, I apologize for not answering.

Samuel A. Alito 2:49

I understand your position to be different from from theirs, but I perhaps I should ask them about about their position.

Mr. Goldstein 2:55

Well I I I apologize if I've created

Unknown 2:57

Excuse me, I I don't agree that there's an agreement for transfer of title. What where there's a consignment, you you give the property to somebody and he says, I will sell it to somebody if somebody will buy it. There is no agreement to transfer title. There is it's purely uh a a a a future contingency. If someone will buy it, I will sell them sell it to that person on your account.

Mr. Goldstein 3:21

Yes. I bel I will allow you I I apologize, I will allow you. The it would be you can do I know whatever you want. The uh government can explain it to the but anyway, go ahead. Yes. The it is the statute refers to a consignment for sale. I believe they are defining a sale in that phrase. But in all events The debate over whether it includes or is limited to a transfer of title is not at issue in this case because what the because all the statute requires is that there at the very least be some exchange of some part. There's going to be an ag a binding agreement, a commitment, and that uh commitment will involve an exchange with the employer. What happens in pharmaceutical detailing is that there can't be any commitment to issue a prescription at all.