November 11, 2025 • 19 mins
Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.
This episode is part of my initiative to provide access to important court decisions impacting employees in an easy to understand conversational format using AI. The speakers in the episode are AI generated and frankly sound great to listen to. Enjoy!
Headlines rarely explain how discrimination actually works; the paperwork does. We take you inside a sweeping class action against Novartis where plaintiffs alleged a nationwide pattern of gender bias driven less by explicit rules and more by subjective decisions about promotions, performance reviews, and discipline. As we unpack the filings, we surface the mechanics that matter: a management development program that functioned as a gate, shifting criteria that discounted strong results, assignment patterns that boosted some careers and stalled others, and a hostile culture that complaints allegedly failed to correct.
We ground the big picture in human stories. Amy Velez’s strong sales numbers met an MDP denial and rapid discipline after FMLA leave, while a male partner avoided similar consequences. Sonia Klinger’s contested review hinged on a narrow sales window shaped by denied resources, followed by lost raises and stock options. Manel Heider Tabertka’s national performance didn’t translate into advancement access; a male peer’s did. Michelle Williams described communications about advancement that quieted once she disclosed her pregnancy, plus a reduced raise processed during maternity leave without consent. Together, these narratives illustrate how subjective frameworks can override merit and reframe protected leave as a liability.
We also examine the remedies sought: not just damages, but court-ordered structural change across promotions, transfers, training, evaluations, compensation, and discipline, monitored by an equality task force. That request raises a critical governance question for any large employer: when internal policies fail to prevent systemic bias, how far should external oversight go? Our takeaways center on building systems that stand up to scrutiny—clear advancement criteria, calibrated reviews, transparent metrics, and independent audits that close the gap between policy and practice.
If this conversation resonates, follow the show, share it with a colleague who cares about fair workplaces, and leave a review with your answer to one question: should courts mandate HR reform when companies don’t fix it themselves?
If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts. Leaving a review will inform other listeners you found the content on this podcast is important in the area of employment law in the United States.
For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.
Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
SPEAKER_01 (00:00):
Okay, let's unpack this.
We are diving deep into uh apretty high-stakes legal filing
today.
We're analyzing a massive stackof court documents detailing
allegations of, well, systemicfailures inside one of the
world's largest pharmaceuticalcompanies, Novartis.
SPEAKER_00 (00:17):
Right.
And our goal here, our mission,is really critical.
SPEAKER_01 (00:20):
Aaron Powell Yeah, it is.
To move past the sort ofsensational headlines, you know.
SPEAKER_00 (00:25):
Exactly.
Extract the factual claims, theones detailed by the plaintiffs,
and understand how these allegedinstitutional patterns actually
played out.
SPEAKER_01 (00:33):
In the daily professional lives of employees,
right?
SPEAKER_00 (00:36):
Precisely.
So the specific case we'redissecting is the class action
complaint, Amy Velez at all v.
Novartis Corporation andNovartis Pharmaceuticals
Corporation.
Okay.
It was filed originally back in2004.
And this lawsuit, it's centeredon Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act.
SPEAKER_01 (00:50):
Aaron Powell, which, just as a reminder for everyone,
broadly prohibits employmentdiscrimination based on sex,
race, color, religion, nationalorigin.
SPEAKER_00 (00:58):
Aaron Powell Correct.
But here the focus wasspecifically on alleged
pervasive nationwide genderdiscrimination.
SPEAKER_01 (01:04):
Aaron Powell But that focus on nationwide really
is key, isn't it?
SPEAKER_00 (01:07):
Aaron Powell It absolutely is.
SPEAKER_01 (01:08):
Aaron Powell Because the plaintiffs, these 12 women
who served as classrepresentatives, they weren't
just claiming like isolatedincidents.
SPEAKER_00 (01:15):
No, not at all.
They aimed to prove a systemicpattern, something affecting
potentially thousands of womenacross the company.
SPEAKER_01 (01:22):
Aaron Powell And covering pretty much everything.
SPEAKER_00 (01:23):
Aaron Powell Yeah.
Promotion tracks, pay equity,differential treatment, even a
hostile work culture.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01 (01:28):
So we're really examining the structure they
claimed enabled this allegedbias.
SPEAKER_00 (01:32):
Aaron Powell Exactly.
This wasn't some small internalHR dispute you hear about
sometimes.
SPEAKER_01 (01:37):
No, clearly not.
SPEAKER_00 (01:38):
This lawsuit was filed by a group of female,
current, and former employeesrepresenting potentially an
enormous class of similarlysituated women.
SPEAKER_01 (01:46):
Aaron Powell Across the company's entire U.S.
operations.
SPEAKER_00 (01:49):
That's right.
And the defendants, NovartisCorporation and Novartis
Pharmaceuticals Corporation,jointly Novartis, they were
facing allegations that theircore employment practices were,
well, fundamentally flawed.
SPEAKER_01 (02:02):
Trevor Burrus, Jr.: It's probably crucial to lay out
the uh fundamental claim here.
SPEAKER_00 (02:05):
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
Yeah, definitely.
SPEAKER_01 (02:06):
Trevor Burrus The complaint alleges Novartis was
engaged in a systemic patternand practice of gender
discrimination in employment.
Full stop.
And that practice allegedlyshowed up in discriminatory
policies related to selection,promotion, advancement.
SPEAKER_00 (02:22):
Aaron Powell Disparate pay, differential
treatment, and gender hostility.
It's incredibly broad.
SPEAKER_01 (02:28):
Aaron Powell It is a huge indictment of their
employment structure, really.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_00 (02:31):
It is.
But you know, as we unpack theseclaims, we absolutely have to
maintain legal balance here.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01 (02:37):
Right.
Because Novartis had a response.
SPEAKER_00 (02:38):
Aaron Powell Of course.
In their official answerdocuments, they generally and
categorically denied theseallegations of discrimination.
Okay.
In many instances, they statedthey simply lacked sufficient
information to confirm or denythe specific claims the
plaintiffs made.
SPEAKER_01 (02:52):
Aaron Powell So important for you listening.
We're reported the allegationsas documented in the complaint,
but also noting Novartis'sconsistent legal denial of any
wrongdoing.
SPEAKER_00 (03:00):
Absolutely essential context.
SPEAKER_01 (03:02):
Aaron Powell Okay, so understanding that balance,
let's look at the mechanism ofthe bias they alleged.
If company policies look neutralon paper, how did the plaintiffs
claim this systemicdiscrimination was actually
carried out?
SPEAKER_00 (03:16):
Aaron Powell Well, the class representatives they
focused heavily on theinstitutional reliance on
subjectivity.
That's the key word here.
SPEAKER_01 (03:23):
Subjectivity.
SPEAKER_00 (03:24):
Yeah.
The sources claim thatadvancement opportunities
weren't purely driven byobjective merit, like sales
numbers or years of experience.
SPEAKER_01 (03:32):
These you can measure easily.
SPEAKER_00 (03:33):
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
Exactly.
Instead, they claimedopportunities were driven by
personal familiarity and uhsubjective decision-making.
SPEAKER_01 (03:41):
Aaron Powell So the company allegedly let objective
metrics kind of get overriddenby a trust factor.
Or maybe a personal connection.
SPEAKER_00 (03:48):
Aaron Powell Precisely.
And this subjective framework,the documents allege, allowed a
predominantly male managerialstaff to incorporate gender
stereotypes and bias into reallycritical decisions.
SPEAKER_01 (03:59):
Aaron Powell Like what kind of decisions?
SPEAKER_00 (04:00):
Aaron Powell Well, like who got into the management
development program, the MDP,which was crucial.
Also, who received promotionsand how performance reviews were
weighted?
These subjective elementsallegedly opened the door.
SPEAKER_01 (04:12):
Aaron Powell So the key takeaway here seems to be
that subjective standards didn'tjust allow bias, they allegedly
provided a sort of legal shieldfor it.
SPEAKER_00 (04:21):
Aaron Powell That's the argument, yes.
SPEAKER_01 (04:22):
Aaron Powell And what was the claimed result of
all this?
SPEAKER_00 (04:24):
Aaron Powell The alleged result was a pretty
clear disparity.
Female employees were kept inlower classifications.
They were paid less than theirmale counterparts for comparable
work.
SPEAKER_01 (04:35):
Aaron Powell Even if they were doing the same job?
SPEAKER_00 (04:36):
That's the claim.
And men advanced far morerapidly to better, higher paying
jobs.
The systemic argument isbasically that the company's
structure made sure that if youwere female, your path upwards
was, well, artificiallyconstricted.
Aaron Powell Okay.
SPEAKER_01 (04:50):
So moving from that alleged structural cause to the
practical effect.
Let's talk about how thisalleged discrimination actually
operated on the ground.
The promotion barrier seemedcentral to the claims.
SPEAKER_00 (05:00):
Aaron Powell It really was.
A pattern that allegedlyrestricted women from moving
into those lucrative, high-levelroles.
SPEAKER_01 (05:06):
Aaron Powell So how did this alleged obstruction
actually manifest, according tothe documents?
SPEAKER_00 (05:11):
Aaron Powell The documents reveal several ways.
One major component was uhdifferential treatment.
The plaintiffs claimed femaleemployees were held to
dramatically stricter standardsthan their male colleagues.
SPEAKER_01 (05:24):
Aaron Powell Stricter standards.
Meaning what exactly?
SPEAKER_00 (05:26):
Aaron Ross Powell Meaning the same level of
performance would earn a woman alower performance appraisal
compared to a man.
SPEAKER_01 (05:32):
Aaron Ross Powell Wow.
So same output, maybe evenbetter, but harsher evaluation.
SPEAKER_00 (05:36):
Aaron Powell That's the claim.
SPEAKER_01 (05:37):
Aaron Powell Which then presumably justified
blocking future promotions orpay raises.
SPEAKER_00 (05:42):
Aaron Powell Yes.
The complaint claims thesesubjective reviews led directly
to punitive actions.
Female employees were allegedlydisciplined more frequently and
more severely.
SPEAKER_01 (05:51):
Aaron Powell Like what kind of disciplinary
actions?
SPEAKER_00 (05:53):
Aaron Powell This included being placed on things
like coaching plans or formalperformance improvement plans,
PIP.
SPEAKER_01 (05:59):
Trevor Burrus Which is often a bad sign.
SPEAKER_00 (06:01):
Oh yeah.
Often the administrative steptaken right before termination.
So this effectively manufacturedreasons like disciplinary
actions or low ratings thatblocked women from being
eligible for promotion, evenwhen they were objectively
qualified based on their actualwork.
SPEAKER_01 (06:15):
And conversely, the documents claim male employees
received preferential treatment.
SPEAKER_00 (06:20):
That's right.
Often gaining access to betterwork assignments, more
resources, things that helpedboost their profile for future
advancement.
SPEAKER_01 (06:28):
So it created like a positive feedback loop for men
and a negative one for women.
SPEAKER_00 (06:32):
That's the alleged imbalance they describe.
And the systemic claims weren'tjust limited to career
development either.
Okay.
The sources also detail apersistent alleged hostile work
environment.
The plaintiffs claimed malesupervisors and colleagues
routinely engaged in sexuallyhostile comments, uh, jokes,
harassment, and intimidation.
SPEAKER_01 (06:52):
Aaron Powell And what action did the company
allegedly take in response toall this hostility, if any?
SPEAKER_00 (06:57):
Aaron Powell Well, the core allegation there is
that Novartis failed toimplement adequate internal
procedures to detect and correctthis pattern.
SPEAKER_01 (07:04):
Even when complaints were made.
SPEAKER_00 (07:06):
Even after numerous formal complaints were made
directly to management and HR,according to the filings.
The claim is that this lack ofaction or sometimes even direct
managerial encouragementfostered and maintained an
environment that penalizedfemale employees, especially
those who tried to stand up forthemselves.
SPEAKER_01 (07:24):
Okay, this is where we really transition from the
sort of theoretical framework ofbias to the concrete experiences
of the individual women whoactually brought the lawsuit.
SPEAKER_00 (07:34):
Right.
The human stories behind thelegalese.
SPEAKER_01 (07:36):
Let's start with Amy Velez.
Her experience in the DCterritory seems to perfectly
encapsulate this clash betweenlike high performance and the
subjective barrier.
SPEAKER_00 (07:46):
Yeah, Amy Velez's sales performance, according to
the documents, was excellent.
She was hired in 1997,repeatedly won top sales
contests.
Really strong metrics.
SPEAKER_01 (07:55):
That sounds like a star performer.
SPEAKER_00 (07:56):
Objectively, yes.
However, when she applied forthese high-profile institutional
specialty positions in 1999 and2000, the complaint alleges she
was denied both times.
SPEAKER_01 (08:05):
In favor of men.
SPEAKER_00 (08:06):
In favor of male candidates, yes.
Craig Lafferty and RobertReingold.
Her objective success, it seemsthe argument goes, wasn't
enough.
SPEAKER_01 (08:15):
Aaron Powell And then the documents detail the
alleged punishment she facedafter exercising her rights
under the Family and MedicalLeave Act, the FMLA.
SPEAKER_00 (08:23):
Ah, yes, the FMLA angle.
SPEAKER_01 (08:25):
And just for you listening, the FMLA provides
employees with job-protectedleave for specific family or
medical reasons.
It's a federal law.
SPEAKER_00 (08:33):
Absolutely crucial protection.
So after Velez returned fromFMLA leave, she had had twins,
she immediately sought entryinto the management development
program, the MDP.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01 (08:43):
Which you mentioned was like a non-negotiable step
for management advancement atNovartis.
SPEAKER_00 (08:47):
Exactly.
You had to do it.
But despite having stellar salesperformance after her leave, I
mean doubling key product sales,higher sales growth than
multiple male colleagues, herregional director, a guy named
Steve Webb, allegedly denied herapplication.
SPEAKER_01 (09:02):
Aaron Powell On what grounds?
SPEAKER_00 (09:03):
He allegedly claimed he didn't expect her to become a
candidate in the future.
Highly subjective.
SPEAKER_01 (09:07):
That sounds incredibly subjective,
especially overriding concretesales data like that.
What happened after she uhchallenged that decision or
asked about it?
SPEAKER_00 (09:17):
Aaron Powell Well, the complaint alleges that after
she inquired about why she wasdenied for the MDP, she was very
rapidly placed on disciplinarymeasures.
First a coaching plan, then aformal PIP.
Wow.
And the documents highlight areally powerful point of
comparison here.
SPEAKER_01 (09:32):
Which is.
SPEAKER_00 (09:33):
Her male partner in the territory, Oliver, who
shared the exact sameresponsibilities, the same
territory results, he was notdisciplined at all.
SPEAKER_01 (09:41):
Okay.
That contrast is stark.
SPEAKER_00 (09:43):
It really is.
This sequence, you know, highperformance, FMLA leave, denial
of a promotion path, followed bythis targety disciplinary
spiral, is presented as a clearexample of the alleged pattern.
SPEAKER_01 (09:53):
And there was hostility too.
SPEAKER_00 (09:55):
Yes.
Furthermore, she claims genderhostility.
Things like her managerrepeatedly calling her while she
was on FMLA leave, pressuringher to work.
SPEAKER_01 (10:02):
While she was legally on leave.
SPEAKER_00 (10:04):
Yes.
And then warning her upon herreturn that she would be, quote,
under the gun.
SPEAKER_01 (10:08):
Aaron Ross Powell That paints a picture of FMLA
potentially being used almost asjustification for, well,
systemic gatekeeping.
SPEAKER_00 (10:16):
That seems to be the implication drawn in the
complaint.
SPEAKER_01 (10:18):
Aaron Powell Okay, let's look at Sonia Klinger in
St.
Louis.
Her case seems to focus heavilyon differential evaluation and
its direct impact on herfinances.
unknown (10:27):
Right.
SPEAKER_00 (10:27):
Klinger's promotion path was also allegedly blocked
multiple times.
She was told she lackedsufficient experience for a
regional director role.
Okay.
Only for a male employee, RickBrady, who is allegedly equally
or maybe even less qualified, tobe hired instead.
And it happened again.
Later, yes.
Denied a hospital sales managerrole in favor of Paul Geark, a
(10:50):
man who apparently had no priorhospital work experience.
Wow.
SPEAKER_01 (10:53):
And her performance review situation, you say that's
particularly instructive abouthow differential standards
allegedly operated.
SPEAKER_00 (10:59):
Aaron Powell It really is.
So in 2002, Klinger receivedwhat she claimed was an unfairly
negative appraisal from thatsame manager, Brady.
Okay.
The documents claim thisnegative review was based only
on the last trimester of salesdata, which happened to be
unusually low for her.
SPEAKER_01 (11:13):
Aaron Powell Why was it low?
Was there a reason given?
SPEAKER_00 (11:16):
Yes.
Because management had allegedlydenied her request to
temporarily cover two vacantsales territories in her area,
something that could haveboosted her numbers.
SPEAKER_01 (11:26):
Aaron Powell Okay.
But did they deny everyone'srequest like that?
SPEAKER_00 (11:29):
Aaron Ross Powell Well, crucially, the documents
claim they approved a similarrequest for a male colleague,
Ravish Gandhi, in similarcircumstances.
SPEAKER_01 (11:36):
Aaron Powell So let me get this straight.
Management allegedly starved herof resources or opportunity,
which led to lower sales forthat period.
SPEAKER_00 (11:44):
Aaron Powell That's the claim.
SPEAKER_01 (11:45):
Aaron Powell Which was then used in her review to
block her advancement.
SPEAKER_00 (11:48):
Aaron Powell That is exactly the claim laid out.
And the consequences wereimmediate and financial.
SPEAKER_01 (11:53):
How so?
SPEAKER_00 (11:53):
That negative review allegedly prevented her from
being competitive for any otherpromotions.
And it resulted in her beingdenied a salary increase and
stock options in 2003.
SPEAKER_01 (12:03):
Aaron Powell While her male colleagues got them.
SPEAKER_00 (12:05):
While all of her male peers received those
increases, according to thecomplainant.
So her documented salesperformance over time was
essentially negated by oneallegedly unfair review, which
itself was preceded by analleged resource denial based on
gender.
SPEAKER_01 (12:18):
Aaron Powell And there was a hostility claim for
her, too.
SPEAKER_00 (12:21):
Yes.
To top it off, Klinger allegedthat her manager, Brady, used
company funds for a team trip toLas Vegas.
SPEAKER_01 (12:28):
Okay.
SPEAKER_00 (12:29):
But only invited the male employees.
Female employees were apparentlynot invited to that or any
comparable event.
SPEAKER_01 (12:36):
Aaron Powell This alleged pattern seems consistent
across different locations,then.
Let's briefly touch on the casesof Manel Heider Tabertka and
Michelle Williams, just toreinforce the breadth of these
claims.
SPEAKER_00 (12:47):
Aaron Powell Sure.
Manelle Heider Tabertka, she wasin Sacramento, national
recognized, top 50 salesperson,big performer.
SPEAKER_01 (12:54):
Right.
SPEAKER_00 (12:55):
But despite her objective metrics, she alleged
she was also denied themanagement development program.
SPEAKER_01 (13:00):
Same MVP gatekeeping issue.
SPEAKER_00 (13:02):
Exactly.
Her supervisor allegedly claimedshe needed a stronger sales
performance.
SPEAKER_01 (13:06):
Despite being top 50 nationally.
Right.
SPEAKER_00 (13:08):
Meanwhile, George Lopez, allegedly a less
qualified male counterpart, wasenrolled in the MDP.
It mirrors the Velez experienceclosely.
SPEAKER_01 (13:17):
Reinforcing the MDP as an alleged subjective hurdle.
SPEAKER_00 (13:20):
Mm-hmm.
She also alleged pressure toattend a meeting, even though
she had a medical restriction atthe time.
SPEAKER_01 (13:24):
Okay.
And Michelle Williams inChicago.
Her story details an allegedpenalty tied to pregnancy and
maternity leave, right?
SPEAKER_00 (13:32):
Yes.
Williams was actually appointedinterim district manager a step
up.
SPEAKER_01 (13:37):
Okay.
SPEAKER_00 (13:38):
But was allegedly denied the permanent position
because, again, she hadn'tcompleted the MDP.
SPEAKER_01 (13:43):
There's that MDP again.
SPEAKER_00 (13:44):
It's a recurring theme.
But the crucial detail here, thecomplaint alleges, is that after
she informed her manager,Parker, that she was pregnant,
all communication about herenrollment in the management
development program suddenlyjust stopped, ceased completely.
SPEAKER_01 (14:01):
Wow.
That timing seems significant.
SPEAKER_00 (14:03):
It's certainly highlighted in the complaint.
Furthermore, while she wasactually on maternity leave, her
manager allegedly conducted herannual review.
SPEAKER_01 (14:11):
Without her.
SPEAKER_00 (14:12):
Without her present, and unilaterally submitted a
lower raise than her colleaguesreceived.
He allegedly did this withouther consent or signature.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01 (14:20):
Which was against company policy.
SPEAKER_00 (14:21):
Which the documents claim was absolutely against
company policy.
That alleged manipulation of herraise while she was away on
protected maternity leave ispresented as a direct, tangible
financial penalty tied to herfamily status.
SPEAKER_01 (14:37):
These personal narratives, they really
illustrate why the classrepresentatives weren't just
seeking, you know, simplefinancial damages.
SPEAKER_00 (14:44):
No, not at all.
SPEAKER_01 (14:44):
They were aiming for something much bigger
massive, court-mandatedinstitutional restructuring.
SPEAKER_00 (14:51):
That's absolutely clear when you look at the
relief they sought in thelawsuit.
The core of their argument wasthe need for declaratory and
injunctive relief.
SPEAKER_01 (14:59):
Okay.
And for you listening,injunctive relief basically
means asking the court to orderthe company to change its
structure.
SPEAKER_00 (15:05):
Exactly.
Not just pay money for pastharm, but to stop potentially
illegal practices permanently tofix the system going forward.
SPEAKER_01 (15:13):
So they asked for a systemic fix.
What specific changes did theyactually demand the court impose
on Novartis?
SPEAKER_00 (15:19):
They asked the court for a permanent injunction
against all unlawful practicesthey alleged.
And critically, an orderrequiring Novartis to completely
restructure its core employmentpolicies.
SPEAKER_01 (15:29):
Like which one specifically?
SPEAKER_00 (15:31):
Promotion, transfer, training, performance
evaluation, compensation, anddiscipline.
Basically, all the key HRfunctions.
Oh.
And they sought specificjudicial oversight too.
They requested an orderestablishing a task force on
equality and fairness.
SPEAKER_01 (15:48):
Aaron Powell A task force.
SPEAKER_00 (15:49):
Yeah.
With the power to monitor thesechanges across the entire
corporation to make sure theyactually happen and stuck.
SPEAKER_01 (15:56):
Aaron Powell That is a staggering request, really.
Demanding a federal courtessentially mandate how a huge
global corporation runs its mostfundamental internal HR
functions.
SPEAKER_00 (16:06):
Aaron Powell It's a significant intervention into
corporate governance,absolutely.
SPEAKER_01 (16:09):
Aaron Powell And what about the money?
What was the scale of thefinancial damages they sought?
SPEAKER_00 (16:12):
Aaron Powell The plaintiffs demanded a minimum of
$100 million.
SPEAKER_01 (16:16):
Aaron Powell Million.
SPEAKER_00 (16:17):
$100 million, yes.
In compensatory, nominal, andpunitive damages for the entire
class.
So the relief sought was trulycomprehensive.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01 (16:25):
Trying to cover all the bases.
SPEAKER_00 (16:26):
Aaron Powell Making the employees financially whole,
deterring future discriminatorybehavior through punitive
damages, and mandating thatpermanent structural overhaul of
the company's internaloperations.
Hashtag outro.
SPEAKER_01 (16:40):
Aaron Powell So as we wrap up this deep dive, the
uh the structural complexityrevealed in these legal
documents is pretty stark, isn'tit?
SPEAKER_00 (16:48):
It really is.
SPEAKER_01 (16:48):
We've seen these claims where female,
high-performing employeesconsistently hit administrative
barriers, things like unfairappraisals, these mandatory
programs like the MDP, denial ofnecessary resources, barriers
that their male counterparts,often with comparable or maybe
even lesser performance,allegedly just avoided entirely
(17:09):
on their way up.
SPEAKER_00 (17:10):
Yeah, sailed right through, according to the
allegations.
And what these documents reallyilluminate for you listening is
that critical business lesson,having equitable formal policies
on paper.
It's just not enough.
SPEAKER_01 (17:20):
Right.
Policy versus practice.
SPEAKER_00 (17:22):
Exactly.
If managers rely on subjective,kind of trust-based decision
making rather than objectivemerit, what the documents call
personal familiarity.
Yes.
It creates this allegedopportunity for bias to
flourish.
And it seems to particularlypenalize high-performing
employees who take necessaryleaves, like FMLA or maternity
leave.
SPEAKER_01 (17:41):
It really transforms the narrative, doesn't it?
Yeah.
From maybe occasional badjudgment by a few managers into
a claim of actual institutionaldesign failure.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_00 (17:51):
Indeed.
And that leads us right to ourfinal provocative thought for
you to consider.
These plaintiffs, remember,weren't just seeking money.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01 (17:59):
No, the structural change was huge.
SPEAKER_00 (18:00):
They sought a court order to fundamentally
restructure basic corporatefunctions, hiring, training,
promotion to ensure futurefairness.
And this raises a reallyimportant question.
When internal private policiesallegedly fail to protect
against pervasive systemic bias,how extensively should external
(18:20):
legal mechanisms like the courtsbe used to bypass management and
forcefully mandate operationalreform in these massive global
corporations?
SPEAKER_01 (18:29):
That balance between internal corporate autonomy and
external legal management.
SPEAKER_00 (18:33):
Exactly.
Where do you draw that line?
That's definitely somethingworth mulling over.
Okay, let's unpack this.
We are diving deep into uh apretty high-stakes legal filing
today.
We're analyzing a massive stackof court documents detailing
allegations of, well, systemicfailures inside one of the
world's largest pharmaceuticalcompanies, Novartis.
SPEAKER_00 (00:17):
Right.
And our goal here, our mission,is really critical.
SPEAKER_01 (00:20):
Aaron Powell Yeah, it is.
To move past the sort ofsensational headlines, you know.
SPEAKER_00 (00:25):
Exactly.
Extract the factual claims, theones detailed by the plaintiffs,
and understand how these allegedinstitutional patterns actually
played out.
SPEAKER_01 (00:33):
In the daily professional lives of employees,
right?
SPEAKER_00 (00:36):
Precisely.
So the specific case we'redissecting is the class action
complaint, Amy Velez at all v.
Novartis Corporation andNovartis Pharmaceuticals
Corporation.
Okay.
It was filed originally back in2004.
And this lawsuit, it's centeredon Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act.
SPEAKER_01 (00:50):
Aaron Powell, which, just as a reminder for everyone,
broadly prohibits employmentdiscrimination based on sex,
race, color, religion, nationalorigin.
SPEAKER_00 (00:58):
Aaron Powell Correct.
But here the focus wasspecifically on alleged
pervasive nationwide genderdiscrimination.
SPEAKER_01 (01:04):
Aaron Powell But that focus on nationwide really
is key, isn't it?
SPEAKER_00 (01:07):
Aaron Powell It absolutely is.
SPEAKER_01 (01:08):
Aaron Powell Because the plaintiffs, these 12 women
who served as classrepresentatives, they weren't
just claiming like isolatedincidents.
SPEAKER_00 (01:15):
No, not at all.
They aimed to prove a systemicpattern, something affecting
potentially thousands of womenacross the company.
SPEAKER_01 (01:22):
Aaron Powell And covering pretty much everything.
SPEAKER_00 (01:23):
Aaron Powell Yeah.
Promotion tracks, pay equity,differential treatment, even a
hostile work culture.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01 (01:28):
So we're really examining the structure they
claimed enabled this allegedbias.
SPEAKER_00 (01:32):
Aaron Powell Exactly.
This wasn't some small internalHR dispute you hear about
sometimes.
SPEAKER_01 (01:37):
No, clearly not.
SPEAKER_00 (01:38):
This lawsuit was filed by a group of female,
current, and former employeesrepresenting potentially an
enormous class of similarlysituated women.
SPEAKER_01 (01:46):
Aaron Powell Across the company's entire U.S.
operations.
SPEAKER_00 (01:49):
That's right.
And the defendants, NovartisCorporation and Novartis
Pharmaceuticals Corporation,jointly Novartis, they were
facing allegations that theircore employment practices were,
well, fundamentally flawed.
SPEAKER_01 (02:02):
Trevor Burrus, Jr.: It's probably crucial to lay out
the uh fundamental claim here.
SPEAKER_00 (02:05):
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
Yeah, definitely.
SPEAKER_01 (02:06):
Trevor Burrus The complaint alleges Novartis was
engaged in a systemic patternand practice of gender
discrimination in employment.
Full stop.
And that practice allegedlyshowed up in discriminatory
policies related to selection,promotion, advancement.
SPEAKER_00 (02:22):
Aaron Powell Disparate pay, differential
treatment, and gender hostility.
It's incredibly broad.
SPEAKER_01 (02:28):
Aaron Powell It is a huge indictment of their
employment structure, really.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_00 (02:31):
It is.
But you know, as we unpack theseclaims, we absolutely have to
maintain legal balance here.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01 (02:37):
Right.
Because Novartis had a response.
SPEAKER_00 (02:38):
Aaron Powell Of course.
In their official answerdocuments, they generally and
categorically denied theseallegations of discrimination.
Okay.
In many instances, they statedthey simply lacked sufficient
information to confirm or denythe specific claims the
plaintiffs made.
SPEAKER_01 (02:52):
Aaron Powell So important for you listening.
We're reported the allegationsas documented in the complaint,
but also noting Novartis'sconsistent legal denial of any
wrongdoing.
SPEAKER_00 (03:00):
Absolutely essential context.
SPEAKER_01 (03:02):
Aaron Powell Okay, so understanding that balance,
let's look at the mechanism ofthe bias they alleged.
If company policies look neutralon paper, how did the plaintiffs
claim this systemicdiscrimination was actually
carried out?
SPEAKER_00 (03:16):
Aaron Powell Well, the class representatives they
focused heavily on theinstitutional reliance on
subjectivity.
That's the key word here.
SPEAKER_01 (03:23):
Subjectivity.
SPEAKER_00 (03:24):
Yeah.
The sources claim thatadvancement opportunities
weren't purely driven byobjective merit, like sales
numbers or years of experience.
SPEAKER_01 (03:32):
These you can measure easily.
SPEAKER_00 (03:33):
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
Exactly.
Instead, they claimedopportunities were driven by
personal familiarity and uhsubjective decision-making.
SPEAKER_01 (03:41):
Aaron Powell So the company allegedly let objective
metrics kind of get overriddenby a trust factor.
Or maybe a personal connection.
SPEAKER_00 (03:48):
Aaron Powell Precisely.
And this subjective framework,the documents allege, allowed a
predominantly male managerialstaff to incorporate gender
stereotypes and bias into reallycritical decisions.
SPEAKER_01 (03:59):
Aaron Powell Like what kind of decisions?
SPEAKER_00 (04:00):
Aaron Powell Well, like who got into the management
development program, the MDP,which was crucial.
Also, who received promotionsand how performance reviews were
weighted?
These subjective elementsallegedly opened the door.
SPEAKER_01 (04:12):
Aaron Powell So the key takeaway here seems to be
that subjective standards didn'tjust allow bias, they allegedly
provided a sort of legal shieldfor it.
SPEAKER_00 (04:21):
Aaron Powell That's the argument, yes.
SPEAKER_01 (04:22):
Aaron Powell And what was the claimed result of
all this?
SPEAKER_00 (04:24):
Aaron Powell The alleged result was a pretty
clear disparity.
Female employees were kept inlower classifications.
They were paid less than theirmale counterparts for comparable
work.
SPEAKER_01 (04:35):
Aaron Powell Even if they were doing the same job?
SPEAKER_00 (04:36):
That's the claim.
And men advanced far morerapidly to better, higher paying
jobs.
The systemic argument isbasically that the company's
structure made sure that if youwere female, your path upwards
was, well, artificiallyconstricted.
Aaron Powell Okay.
SPEAKER_01 (04:50):
So moving from that alleged structural cause to the
practical effect.
Let's talk about how thisalleged discrimination actually
operated on the ground.
The promotion barrier seemedcentral to the claims.
SPEAKER_00 (05:00):
Aaron Powell It really was.
A pattern that allegedlyrestricted women from moving
into those lucrative, high-levelroles.
SPEAKER_01 (05:06):
Aaron Powell So how did this alleged obstruction
actually manifest, according tothe documents?
SPEAKER_00 (05:11):
Aaron Powell The documents reveal several ways.
One major component was uhdifferential treatment.
The plaintiffs claimed femaleemployees were held to
dramatically stricter standardsthan their male colleagues.
SPEAKER_01 (05:24):
Aaron Powell Stricter standards.
Meaning what exactly?
SPEAKER_00 (05:26):
Aaron Ross Powell Meaning the same level of
performance would earn a woman alower performance appraisal
compared to a man.
SPEAKER_01 (05:32):
Aaron Ross Powell Wow.
So same output, maybe evenbetter, but harsher evaluation.
SPEAKER_00 (05:36):
Aaron Powell That's the claim.
SPEAKER_01 (05:37):
Aaron Powell Which then presumably justified
blocking future promotions orpay raises.
SPEAKER_00 (05:42):
Aaron Powell Yes.
The complaint claims thesesubjective reviews led directly
to punitive actions.
Female employees were allegedlydisciplined more frequently and
more severely.
SPEAKER_01 (05:51):
Aaron Powell Like what kind of disciplinary
actions?
SPEAKER_00 (05:53):
Aaron Powell This included being placed on things
like coaching plans or formalperformance improvement plans,
PIP.
SPEAKER_01 (05:59):
Trevor Burrus Which is often a bad sign.
SPEAKER_00 (06:01):
Oh yeah.
Often the administrative steptaken right before termination.
So this effectively manufacturedreasons like disciplinary
actions or low ratings thatblocked women from being
eligible for promotion, evenwhen they were objectively
qualified based on their actualwork.
SPEAKER_01 (06:15):
And conversely, the documents claim male employees
received preferential treatment.
SPEAKER_00 (06:20):
That's right.
Often gaining access to betterwork assignments, more
resources, things that helpedboost their profile for future
advancement.
SPEAKER_01 (06:28):
So it created like a positive feedback loop for men
and a negative one for women.
SPEAKER_00 (06:32):
That's the alleged imbalance they describe.
And the systemic claims weren'tjust limited to career
development either.
Okay.
The sources also detail apersistent alleged hostile work
environment.
The plaintiffs claimed malesupervisors and colleagues
routinely engaged in sexuallyhostile comments, uh, jokes,
harassment, and intimidation.
SPEAKER_01 (06:52):
Aaron Powell And what action did the company
allegedly take in response toall this hostility, if any?
SPEAKER_00 (06:57):
Aaron Powell Well, the core allegation there is
that Novartis failed toimplement adequate internal
procedures to detect and correctthis pattern.
SPEAKER_01 (07:04):
Even when complaints were made.
SPEAKER_00 (07:06):
Even after numerous formal complaints were made
directly to management and HR,according to the filings.
The claim is that this lack ofaction or sometimes even direct
managerial encouragementfostered and maintained an
environment that penalizedfemale employees, especially
those who tried to stand up forthemselves.
SPEAKER_01 (07:24):
Okay, this is where we really transition from the
sort of theoretical framework ofbias to the concrete experiences
of the individual women whoactually brought the lawsuit.
SPEAKER_00 (07:34):
Right.
The human stories behind thelegalese.
SPEAKER_01 (07:36):
Let's start with Amy Velez.
Her experience in the DCterritory seems to perfectly
encapsulate this clash betweenlike high performance and the
subjective barrier.
SPEAKER_00 (07:46):
Yeah, Amy Velez's sales performance, according to
the documents, was excellent.
She was hired in 1997,repeatedly won top sales
contests.
Really strong metrics.
SPEAKER_01 (07:55):
That sounds like a star performer.
SPEAKER_00 (07:56):
Objectively, yes.
However, when she applied forthese high-profile institutional
specialty positions in 1999 and2000, the complaint alleges she
was denied both times.
SPEAKER_01 (08:05):
In favor of men.
SPEAKER_00 (08:06):
In favor of male candidates, yes.
Craig Lafferty and RobertReingold.
Her objective success, it seemsthe argument goes, wasn't
enough.
SPEAKER_01 (08:15):
Aaron Powell And then the documents detail the
alleged punishment she facedafter exercising her rights
under the Family and MedicalLeave Act, the FMLA.
SPEAKER_00 (08:23):
Ah, yes, the FMLA angle.
SPEAKER_01 (08:25):
And just for you listening, the FMLA provides
employees with job-protectedleave for specific family or
medical reasons.
It's a federal law.
SPEAKER_00 (08:33):
Absolutely crucial protection.
So after Velez returned fromFMLA leave, she had had twins,
she immediately sought entryinto the management development
program, the MDP.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01 (08:43):
Which you mentioned was like a non-negotiable step
for management advancement atNovartis.
SPEAKER_00 (08:47):
Exactly.
You had to do it.
But despite having stellar salesperformance after her leave, I
mean doubling key product sales,higher sales growth than
multiple male colleagues, herregional director, a guy named
Steve Webb, allegedly denied herapplication.
SPEAKER_01 (09:02):
Aaron Powell On what grounds?
SPEAKER_00 (09:03):
He allegedly claimed he didn't expect her to become a
candidate in the future.
Highly subjective.
SPEAKER_01 (09:07):
That sounds incredibly subjective,
especially overriding concretesales data like that.
What happened after she uhchallenged that decision or
asked about it?
SPEAKER_00 (09:17):
Aaron Powell Well, the complaint alleges that after
she inquired about why she wasdenied for the MDP, she was very
rapidly placed on disciplinarymeasures.
First a coaching plan, then aformal PIP.
Wow.
And the documents highlight areally powerful point of
comparison here.
SPEAKER_01 (09:32):
Which is.
SPEAKER_00 (09:33):
Her male partner in the territory, Oliver, who
shared the exact sameresponsibilities, the same
territory results, he was notdisciplined at all.
SPEAKER_01 (09:41):
Okay.
That contrast is stark.
SPEAKER_00 (09:43):
It really is.
This sequence, you know, highperformance, FMLA leave, denial
of a promotion path, followed bythis targety disciplinary
spiral, is presented as a clearexample of the alleged pattern.
SPEAKER_01 (09:53):
And there was hostility too.
SPEAKER_00 (09:55):
Yes.
Furthermore, she claims genderhostility.
Things like her managerrepeatedly calling her while she
was on FMLA leave, pressuringher to work.
SPEAKER_01 (10:02):
While she was legally on leave.
SPEAKER_00 (10:04):
Yes.
And then warning her upon herreturn that she would be, quote,
under the gun.
SPEAKER_01 (10:08):
Aaron Ross Powell That paints a picture of FMLA
potentially being used almost asjustification for, well,
systemic gatekeeping.
SPEAKER_00 (10:16):
That seems to be the implication drawn in the
complaint.
SPEAKER_01 (10:18):
Aaron Powell Okay, let's look at Sonia Klinger in
St.
Louis.
Her case seems to focus heavilyon differential evaluation and
its direct impact on herfinances.
unknown (10:27):
Right.
SPEAKER_00 (10:27):
Klinger's promotion path was also allegedly blocked
multiple times.
She was told she lackedsufficient experience for a
regional director role.
Okay.
Only for a male employee, RickBrady, who is allegedly equally
or maybe even less qualified, tobe hired instead.
And it happened again.
Later, yes.
Denied a hospital sales managerrole in favor of Paul Geark, a
(10:50):
man who apparently had no priorhospital work experience.
Wow.
SPEAKER_01 (10:53):
And her performance review situation, you say that's
particularly instructive abouthow differential standards
allegedly operated.
SPEAKER_00 (10:59):
Aaron Powell It really is.
So in 2002, Klinger receivedwhat she claimed was an unfairly
negative appraisal from thatsame manager, Brady.
Okay.
The documents claim thisnegative review was based only
on the last trimester of salesdata, which happened to be
unusually low for her.
SPEAKER_01 (11:13):
Aaron Powell Why was it low?
Was there a reason given?
SPEAKER_00 (11:16):
Yes.
Because management had allegedlydenied her request to
temporarily cover two vacantsales territories in her area,
something that could haveboosted her numbers.
SPEAKER_01 (11:26):
Aaron Powell Okay.
But did they deny everyone'srequest like that?
SPEAKER_00 (11:29):
Aaron Ross Powell Well, crucially, the documents
claim they approved a similarrequest for a male colleague,
Ravish Gandhi, in similarcircumstances.
SPEAKER_01 (11:36):
Aaron Powell So let me get this straight.
Management allegedly starved herof resources or opportunity,
which led to lower sales forthat period.
SPEAKER_00 (11:44):
Aaron Powell That's the claim.
SPEAKER_01 (11:45):
Aaron Powell Which was then used in her review to
block her advancement.
SPEAKER_00 (11:48):
Aaron Powell That is exactly the claim laid out.
And the consequences wereimmediate and financial.
SPEAKER_01 (11:53):
How so?
SPEAKER_00 (11:53):
That negative review allegedly prevented her from
being competitive for any otherpromotions.
And it resulted in her beingdenied a salary increase and
stock options in 2003.
SPEAKER_01 (12:03):
Aaron Powell While her male colleagues got them.
SPEAKER_00 (12:05):
While all of her male peers received those
increases, according to thecomplainant.
So her documented salesperformance over time was
essentially negated by oneallegedly unfair review, which
itself was preceded by analleged resource denial based on
gender.
SPEAKER_01 (12:18):
Aaron Powell And there was a hostility claim for
her, too.
SPEAKER_00 (12:21):
Yes.
To top it off, Klinger allegedthat her manager, Brady, used
company funds for a team trip toLas Vegas.
SPEAKER_01 (12:28):
Okay.
SPEAKER_00 (12:29):
But only invited the male employees.
Female employees were apparentlynot invited to that or any
comparable event.
SPEAKER_01 (12:36):
Aaron Powell This alleged pattern seems consistent
across different locations,then.
Let's briefly touch on the casesof Manel Heider Tabertka and
Michelle Williams, just toreinforce the breadth of these
claims.
SPEAKER_00 (12:47):
Aaron Powell Sure.
Manelle Heider Tabertka, she wasin Sacramento, national
recognized, top 50 salesperson,big performer.
SPEAKER_01 (12:54):
Right.
SPEAKER_00 (12:55):
But despite her objective metrics, she alleged
she was also denied themanagement development program.
SPEAKER_01 (13:00):
Same MVP gatekeeping issue.
SPEAKER_00 (13:02):
Exactly.
Her supervisor allegedly claimedshe needed a stronger sales
performance.
SPEAKER_01 (13:06):
Despite being top 50 nationally.
Right.
SPEAKER_00 (13:08):
Meanwhile, George Lopez, allegedly a less
qualified male counterpart, wasenrolled in the MDP.
It mirrors the Velez experienceclosely.
SPEAKER_01 (13:17):
Reinforcing the MDP as an alleged subjective hurdle.
SPEAKER_00 (13:20):
Mm-hmm.
She also alleged pressure toattend a meeting, even though
she had a medical restriction atthe time.
SPEAKER_01 (13:24):
Okay.
And Michelle Williams inChicago.
Her story details an allegedpenalty tied to pregnancy and
maternity leave, right?
SPEAKER_00 (13:32):
Yes.
Williams was actually appointedinterim district manager a step
up.
SPEAKER_01 (13:37):
Okay.
SPEAKER_00 (13:38):
But was allegedly denied the permanent position
because, again, she hadn'tcompleted the MDP.
SPEAKER_01 (13:43):
There's that MDP again.
SPEAKER_00 (13:44):
It's a recurring theme.
But the crucial detail here, thecomplaint alleges, is that after
she informed her manager,Parker, that she was pregnant,
all communication about herenrollment in the management
development program suddenlyjust stopped, ceased completely.
SPEAKER_01 (14:01):
Wow.
That timing seems significant.
SPEAKER_00 (14:03):
It's certainly highlighted in the complaint.
Furthermore, while she wasactually on maternity leave, her
manager allegedly conducted herannual review.
SPEAKER_01 (14:11):
Without her.
SPEAKER_00 (14:12):
Without her present, and unilaterally submitted a
lower raise than her colleaguesreceived.
He allegedly did this withouther consent or signature.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01 (14:20):
Which was against company policy.
SPEAKER_00 (14:21):
Which the documents claim was absolutely against
company policy.
That alleged manipulation of herraise while she was away on
protected maternity leave ispresented as a direct, tangible
financial penalty tied to herfamily status.
SPEAKER_01 (14:37):
These personal narratives, they really
illustrate why the classrepresentatives weren't just
seeking, you know, simplefinancial damages.
SPEAKER_00 (14:44):
No, not at all.
SPEAKER_01 (14:44):
They were aiming for something much bigger
massive, court-mandatedinstitutional restructuring.
SPEAKER_00 (14:51):
That's absolutely clear when you look at the
relief they sought in thelawsuit.
The core of their argument wasthe need for declaratory and
injunctive relief.
SPEAKER_01 (14:59):
Okay.
And for you listening,injunctive relief basically
means asking the court to orderthe company to change its
structure.
SPEAKER_00 (15:05):
Exactly.
Not just pay money for pastharm, but to stop potentially
illegal practices permanently tofix the system going forward.
SPEAKER_01 (15:13):
So they asked for a systemic fix.
What specific changes did theyactually demand the court impose
on Novartis?
SPEAKER_00 (15:19):
They asked the court for a permanent injunction
against all unlawful practicesthey alleged.
And critically, an orderrequiring Novartis to completely
restructure its core employmentpolicies.
SPEAKER_01 (15:29):
Like which one specifically?
SPEAKER_00 (15:31):
Promotion, transfer, training, performance
evaluation, compensation, anddiscipline.
Basically, all the key HRfunctions.
Oh.
And they sought specificjudicial oversight too.
They requested an orderestablishing a task force on
equality and fairness.
SPEAKER_01 (15:48):
Aaron Powell A task force.
SPEAKER_00 (15:49):
Yeah.
With the power to monitor thesechanges across the entire
corporation to make sure theyactually happen and stuck.
SPEAKER_01 (15:56):
Aaron Powell That is a staggering request, really.
Demanding a federal courtessentially mandate how a huge
global corporation runs its mostfundamental internal HR
functions.
SPEAKER_00 (16:06):
Aaron Powell It's a significant intervention into
corporate governance,absolutely.
SPEAKER_01 (16:09):
Aaron Powell And what about the money?
What was the scale of thefinancial damages they sought?
SPEAKER_00 (16:12):
Aaron Powell The plaintiffs demanded a minimum of
$100 million.
SPEAKER_01 (16:16):
Aaron Powell Million.
SPEAKER_00 (16:17):
$100 million, yes.
In compensatory, nominal, andpunitive damages for the entire
class.
So the relief sought was trulycomprehensive.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01 (16:25):
Trying to cover all the bases.
SPEAKER_00 (16:26):
Aaron Powell Making the employees financially whole,
deterring future discriminatorybehavior through punitive
damages, and mandating thatpermanent structural overhaul of
the company's internaloperations.
Hashtag outro.
SPEAKER_01 (16:40):
Aaron Powell So as we wrap up this deep dive, the
uh the structural complexityrevealed in these legal
documents is pretty stark, isn'tit?
SPEAKER_00 (16:48):
It really is.
SPEAKER_01 (16:48):
We've seen these claims where female,
high-performing employeesconsistently hit administrative
barriers, things like unfairappraisals, these mandatory
programs like the MDP, denial ofnecessary resources, barriers
that their male counterparts,often with comparable or maybe
even lesser performance,allegedly just avoided entirely
(17:09):
on their way up.
SPEAKER_00 (17:10):
Yeah, sailed right through, according to the
allegations.
And what these documents reallyilluminate for you listening is
that critical business lesson,having equitable formal policies
on paper.
It's just not enough.
SPEAKER_01 (17:20):
Right.
Policy versus practice.
SPEAKER_00 (17:22):
Exactly.
If managers rely on subjective,kind of trust-based decision
making rather than objectivemerit, what the documents call
personal familiarity.
Yes.
It creates this allegedopportunity for bias to
flourish.
And it seems to particularlypenalize high-performing
employees who take necessaryleaves, like FMLA or maternity
leave.
SPEAKER_01 (17:41):
It really transforms the narrative, doesn't it?
Yeah.
From maybe occasional badjudgment by a few managers into
a claim of actual institutionaldesign failure.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_00 (17:51):
Indeed.
And that leads us right to ourfinal provocative thought for
you to consider.
These plaintiffs, remember,weren't just seeking money.
Trevor Burrus, Jr.
SPEAKER_01 (17:59):
No, the structural change was huge.
SPEAKER_00 (18:00):
They sought a court order to fundamentally
restructure basic corporatefunctions, hiring, training,
promotion to ensure futurefairness.
And this raises a reallyimportant question.
When internal private policiesallegedly fail to protect
against pervasive systemic bias,how extensively should external
(18:20):
legal mechanisms like the courtsbe used to bypass management and
forcefully mandate operationalreform in these massive global
corporations?
SPEAKER_01 (18:29):
That balance between internal corporate autonomy and
external legal management.
SPEAKER_00 (18:33):
Exactly.
Where do you draw that line?
That's definitely somethingworth mulling over.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Ruthie's Table 4
For more than 30 years The River Cafe in London, has been the home-from-home of artists, architects, designers, actors, collectors, writers, activists, and politicians. Michael Caine, Glenn Close, JJ Abrams, Steve McQueen, Victoria and David Beckham, and Lily Allen, are just some of the people who love to call The River Cafe home. On River Cafe Table 4, Rogers sits down with her customers—who have become friends—to talk about food memories. Table 4 explores how food impacts every aspect of our lives. “Foods is politics, food is cultural, food is how you express love, food is about your heritage, it defines who you and who you want to be,” says Rogers. Each week, Rogers invites her guest to reminisce about family suppers and first dates, what they cook, how they eat when performing, the restaurants they choose, and what food they seek when they need comfort. And to punctuate each episode of Table 4, guests such as Ralph Fiennes, Emily Blunt, and Alfonso Cuarón, read their favourite recipe from one of the best-selling River Cafe cookbooks. Table 4 itself, is situated near The River Cafe’s open kitchen, close to the bright pink wood-fired oven and next to the glossy yellow pass, where Ruthie oversees the restaurant. You are invited to take a seat at this intimate table and join the conversation. For more information, recipes, and ingredients, go to https://shoptherivercafe.co.uk/ Web: https://rivercafe.co.uk/ Instagram: www.instagram.com/therivercafelondon/ Facebook: https://en-gb.facebook.com/therivercafelondon/ For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iheartradio app, apple podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.