Employee Survival Guide® - Velez v. Novartis: Gender Discrimination Class Action

Episode Date: November 12, 2025

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.

Hey, it's Mark here, and welcome to the next edition of the Employee Survival Guide, where I tell you, as always, what your employer does definitely not want you to know about, and a lot more. Okay, let's unpack this. We are diving deep into a pretty high-stakes legal filing today. We're analyzing a massive stack of court documents detailing allegations, of, well, systemic failures inside one of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies, Novartis. Right. And our goal here, our mission is really critical. Yeah, it is. To move past the sort of sensational headlines, you know. Exactly. Extract the factual claims, the ones detailed by the plaintiffs,

and understand how these alleged institutional patterns actually played out. In the daily professional lives of employees, right? Precisely. So the specific case we're dissecting is the class action complaint, Amy V. V. Novartis Corporation and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. Okay. It was filed originally back in 2004. And this lawsuit, it's centered on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Which, just as a reminder for everyone, broadly prohibits employment discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, national origin.

Correct. But here, the focus was specifically on alleged pervasive nationwide gender discrimination. That focus on nationwide really is key, isn't it? It absolutely is. Because the plaintiffs, these 12 women who served as class representatives, they weren't just claiming, like, isolated incidents. No, not at all. They aimed to prove a systemic pattern, something affecting potentially thousands of women across the company. And covering pretty much everything. Yeah, promotion tracks, pay equity, differential treatment, even a hostile work culture.

So we're really examining the structure they claimed enabled this alleged bias. Exactly. This wasn't some small internal HR dispute you hear about sometimes. No, clearly not. This lawsuit was filed by a group of female, current, and former employees, representing potentially an enormous class of similarly situated women. Across the company's entire U.S. operations. That's right. And the defendants, Novartis Corporation and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation jointly,

Novartis, they were facing allegations that their core employment practices were, well, fundamentally flawed. It's probably crucial to lay out the fundamental claim here. Yeah, definitely. The complaint alleges Novartis was engaged in a systemic pattern and practice of gender discrimination in employment, full stop. And that practice allegedly showed up in discriminatory policies related to selection, promotion, advancement. Desperate pay, differential treatment, and gender hostility. It's incredibly broad.

It is a huge indictment of their employment structure, really. It is. But, you know, as we unpack these claims, we absolutely have to maintain. maintain legal balance here. Right, because Novartis had a response. Of course. In their official answer documents, they generally and categorically denied these allegations of discrimination. Okay. In many instances, they stated they simply lacked sufficient information to confirm or deny the specific claims the plaintiffs made. So important for you listening, we're reporting the allegations as documented in the complaint, but also noting Novartis's consistent legal denial of

any wrongdoing. Absolutely, essential context. Okay, so understanding that balance, let's look at the mechanism of the bias they alleged. If company policies look neutral on paper, how did the plaintiff's claim this systemic discrimination was actually carried out? Well, the class representatives, they focused heavily on the institutional reliance on subjectivity. That's the key word here. Subjectivity. Yeah. The sources claim that advancement opportunities weren't purely driven by objective merit, like sales numbers or years of experience.

These you can measure easily. Exactly. Instead, they claimed opportunities. were driven by personal familiarity and subjective decision-making. So the company allegedly led objective metrics kind of get overridden by a trust factor. Or maybe a personal connection. Precisely. And this subjective framework, the documents allege, allowed a predominantly male managerial staff to incorporate gender stereotypes and bias into really critical decisions.

Like what kind of decisions? Well, like who got into the management development program, the NDP, which was crucial. Also, who received promotions and how performance reviews were weighted, these subjective elements allegedly opened the door. So the key takeaway here seems to be that subjective standards didn't just allow bias. They allegedly provided a sort of legal shield for it. That's the argument, yes. And what was the claimed result of all this? The alleged result was a pretty clear disparity.

Female employees were kept in lower classifications. they were paid less than their male counterparts for comparable work. Even if they were doing the same job? That's the claim. And men advanced far more rapidly to better, higher paying jobs. The systemic argument is basically that the company's structure made sure that if you were female, your path upwards was, well, artificially constricted. Okay, so moving from that alleged structural cause to the practical effect, let's talk about how this alleged discrimination actually operated on the ground. The promotion barrier seems central to the claim.

It really was, a pattern that allegedly restricted women from moving into those lucrative, high-level roles. So how did this alleged obstruction actually manifest, according to the documents? The documents reveal several ways. One major component was differential treatment. The plaintiffs claimed female employees were held to dramatically stricter standards than their male colleagues. Stryptor standards, meaning what exactly? Meaning the same level of performance would earn a woman a lower performance appraisal compared to a man. Wow. So same output, maybe even better, but harsher evaluation.

That's the claim. Which then presumably justified blocking future promotions or pay raises. Yes, the complaint claims these subjective reviews led directly to punitive actions. Female employees were allegedly disciplined more frequently and more severely. Like what kind of disciplinary actions? This included being placed on things like coaching, plans or formal performance improvement plans, PIP. Which is often a bad sign.

Oh, yeah. Often the administrative step taken right before termination. So this effectively manufactured reasons like disciplinary actions or low ratings that blocked women from being eligible for promotion, even when they were objectively qualified based on their actual work. And conversely, the documents claim male employees received preferential treatment. That's right. Often gaining access to better work assignments, more resources, things that helped boost their performance. profile for future advancement. So it created like a positive feedback loop for men and a negative one for women. That's the alleged imbalance they describe. And the systemic claims weren't just

limited to career development either. Okay. The sources also detail a persistent, alleged hostile work environment. The plaintiffs claimed male supervisors and colleagues routinely engaged in sexually hostile comments, jokes, harassment, and intimidation. And what action did the company allegedly take in response to all this hostility, if any? Well, the core allegation there is that Novartis failed to implement adequate internal procedures to detect and

correct this pattern. Even when complaints were made. Even after numerous formal complaints were made directly to management in HR, according to the filings. The claim is that this lack of action or sometimes even direct managerial encouragement fostered and maintained an

environment that penalized female employees, especially those who tried to stand up for themselves. Okay, this is where we really transitioned from the sort of theoretical framework of bias to the concrete experiences of the individual women who actually brought the lawsuit. Right, the human stories behind the legalese. Let's start with Amy Veles. Her experience in the D.C. territory seems to perfectly encapsulate this clash between like high performance and the subjective barrier. Yeah, Amy Volez's sales performance, according to the documents, was excellent. She was hired in 1997 repeatedly won top sales contests. Really strong metrics.

That sounds like a star performer. Objectively, yes. However, when she applied for these high profile institutional specialty positions in 1999 and 2000, the complaint alleges she was denied both times. In favor of men. In favor of male candidates, yes. Craig Lafferty and Robert Reingold. Her objective success, it seems the argument goes, wasn't enough. And then the documents detail the alleged punishment she faced after exercising her rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act, the FMLA. Ah, yes, the FMLA angle. And just for you listening, the FMLA provides employees with job protected leave for specific family or medical reasons.

It's a federal law. Absolutely crucial protection. So after Veles returned from FMLA leave, she had had twins, she immediately sought entry into the management development program, the MDP. Which you mentioned was like a non-negotiable step for managing advancement at Novartis. Exactly. You had to do it. But despite having stellar sales performance after her leave, I mean, doubling key product sales, higher sales growth than multiple male colleagues, her regional director, a guy named Steve Webb, allegedly denied her application. On what grounds? He allegedly claimed he didn't expect her to become a candidate in the future, highly subjective.

That sounds incredibly subjective, especially overriding concrete sales data like that. What happened after she challenged that decision or asked about it? Well, the complaint alleges that after she inquired about why she was denied for the MDP, she was very rapidly placed on disciplinary measures, first a coaching plan, then a formal PIP. Wow. And the documents highlight a really powerful point of comparison here. Which is?

Her male partner in the territory, Oliver, who shared the exact same responsibilities, the same territory results. He was not disciplined at all. Okay. That contrast is stark. It really is. This sequence, you know, high performance, FMLA leave, denial of a promotion. path followed by this targeted disciplinary spiral is presented as a clear example of the alleged

pattern. And there was hostility, too. Yes. Furthermore, she claimed gender hostility, things like her manager repeatedly calling her while she was on FMLA leave, pressuring her to work. While she was legally on leave. Yes. And then warning her upon her return that she would be, quote, under the gun. That paints a picture of FMLA potentially being used almost as justification for, well, systemic gatekeeping. That seems to be the implication drawn. in the complaint. Okay, let's look at Sonia Klinger in St. Louis. Her case seems to focus heavily on differential evaluation and its direct impact on her finances. Right, Klinger's promotion path was also allegedly blocked multiple times. She was told she lacked sufficient experience for a regional

director role. Okay. Only for a male employee, Rick Brady, who is allegedly equally or maybe even less qualified to be hired instead. And it happened again. Later, yes. Denied a hospital sales manager role in favor of Paul Gehrick, a man who apparently had no prior hospital work experience. Wow. And her performance review situation, you say that's particularly instructive about how differential standards allegedly operated. It really is. So in 2002, Klinger received what she claimed was an unfairly negative appraisal from that same manager, Brady. Okay. The documents claim this negative review was based only on the last trimester of sales data, which happened to be unusually low for her. Why was it low? Was there a reason given? Yes. Because management had a

allegedly denied her request to temporarily cover two vacant sales territories in her area, something that could have boosted her numbers. Okay, but did they deny everyone's request like that? Well, crucially, the documents claim they approved a similar request for a male colleague, ravished Gandhi, in similar circumstances. So let me get this straight. Management allegedly starved her of resources or opportunity, which led to lower sales for that period. That's the claim.

Which was then used in her review to block her advancement. That is exactly the claim laid out. And the consequences were immediate and financial. How so? That negative review allegedly prevented her from being competitive for any other promotions. And it resulted in her being denied a salary increase and stock options in 2003. While her male colleagues got them. While all of her male peers received those increases, according to the complaint.

So her documented sales performance over time was essentially negated by one allegedly unfair review, which itself was preceded by an alleged resource denial based on gender. And there was a hostility claim for her, too. Yes. To top it off, Klinger alleged that her manager, Brady, used company funds for a team trip to Las Vegas. Okay. But only invited the male employees. Female employees were apparently not invited to that or any comparable event. This alleged pattern seems consistent across different locations then.

Let's briefly touch on the cases of Manel Heider-Tuberka and Michelle, Williams, just to reinforce the breadth of these claims. Sure. Manel Heider to Burkha. She was in Sacramento, National recognized top 50 salesperson, big performer. Right. But despite her objective metrics, she alleged she was also denied the management development program. Same MVP gatekeeping issue. Exactly. Her supervisor allegedly claimed she needed a stronger sales performance. Despite being top 50 nationally. Right. Meanwhile, George Lopez, allegedly a less qualified male counterpart, was enrolled in the MDP. It mirrors the Volez experience closely. Reinforcing the MDP as an alleged subjective hurdle. She also alleged pressure to attend a meeting, even though she had a medical restriction at the time.

Okay. And Michelle Williams in Chicago. Her story details an alleged penalty tied to pregnancy and maternity leave, right? Yes. Williams was actually appointed interim district manager a step up. Okay. But was allegedly denied the permanent position because, again, she hadn't completed the MDP. There's that MVP again. It's a work-occurring theme. But the crucial detail here, the complaint alleges, is that after she informed her manager, Parker, that she was pregnant. Yeah. All communication about her enrollment in the management development program suddenly just stopped, ceased completely.

Wow. That timing seems significant. It's certainly highlighted in the complaint. Furthermore, while she was actually on maternity leave, her manager allegedly conducted her annual review. Without her. Without her present, and unilaterally submitted a lower raise than her colleagues received. He allegedly did this without her consent or signature. Which was against company policy.

Which the document's claim was absolutely against company policy. That alleged manipulation of her raise while she was away on protected maternity leave is presented as a direct, tangible financial penalty tied to her family status. These personal narratives, they really illustrate why the class representatives weren't just seeking, you know, simple financial damages. No, not at all. They were aiming for something much bigger, a massive court-mandated institutional restructuring. That's absolutely clear when you look at the relief they sought in the lawsuit. The core of their argument was the need for declaratory and injunctive relief. Okay. And for you listening, injunctive relief basically means asking the court to order the company to change its structure. Exactly. Not just pay money for past harm, but to stop potentially illegal practices permanently,

to fix the system going forward. So they asked for a systemic fix. What specific changes did they actually demand the court impose on Novartis? They asked the court for a permanent injunction against all unlawful practices they alleged. And critically, an order requiring Novartis to completely restructure its core employment policies. Like which one specifically? Promotion, transfer, training, performance evaluation, compensation, and discipline. Basically all the key HR functions.

And they sought specific judicial oversight, too. They requested an order establishing a task force on equality and fairness. It's a task force. Yeah, with the power to monitor these changes across the entire corporation to make sure they actually happen and stuck. That is a staggering request, really. Demanding a federal court essentially mandate how a huge global corporation runs its most fundamental internal HR functions. It's a significant intervention into corporate governance, absolutely. And what about the money? What was the scale of the financial damages they sought?

The plaintiffs demanded a minimum of $100 million. A million. A hundred million dollars, yes, in compensatory, nominal, and punitive damages for the entire class. So the relief saw it was truly comprehensive. Trying to cover all the bases. Making the employees financially whole, deterring future discriminatory behavior through punitive damages, and mandating that permanent structural overhaul of the company's internal operations. Hashtag, Outro. So as we wrap up this deep dive, the structural complexity revealed in these legal documents is pretty stark, isn't it?

It really is. We've seen these claims where female, high-performing employees consistently hit administrative barriers, things like unfair appraisals, these mandatory programs like the MDP, denial of necessary resources, barriers that their male counterparts, often with comparable or maybe even lesser performance, allegedly just avoided and. entirely on their way up. Yeah, sailed right through, according to the allegations. And what these documents really illuminate for you listening is that critical business lesson, having equitable formal policies on paper. It's just not enough. Right. Policy versus practice. Exactly. If managers rely on subjective kind of trust-based decision-making rather than objective merit with the documents called personal familiarity, it creates this alleged opportunity for bias to flourish. And it seems to particularly penalize high-performing employees who take necessarily

leaves, like FMLA or maternity leave. It really transforms the narrative, doesn't it? Yeah. From maybe occasional bad judgment by a few managers into a claim of actual institutional design failure. Indeed. And that leads us right to our final provocative thought for you to consider. These plaintiffs, remember, weren't just seeking money.

No, the structural change was huge. They sought a court order to fundamentally restructure basic corporate functions, hiring, training, promotion to ensure future fairness. And this raises a really important question. When internal private policies allegedly fail to protect against pervasive systemic bias, how extensively should external legal mechanisms like the courts be used to bypass management and forcefully mandate operational reform in these massive global corporations? That balance between internal corporate autonomy and external legal manner. Exactly. Where do you draw that line? That's definitely something worth mulling over. If you like the Employees Survival Guide, I'd really encourage you to leave a review.

We try really hard to produce information to you that's informative, that's timely that you can actually use and solve problems on your own and at your employment. So if you like to leave a review anywhere you listen to our podcast, please do so. And leave five stars because anything less than five is really not as good, right? I'll keep it up. I'll keep up the standards up. I'll keep the information flowing at you. If you'd like to send me an email and ask me a question, I'll actually review it and post it on there. You can send it to M-C-A-R-U-I at C-A-P-C-Law.com. That's capclaw.com.