GSK Leadership team, two wrongs rarely make a right (reverse discrimination)

GSK’s US pharmaceutical leadership team has been talking a lot about the values they would like to embed into the company. Stressing the importance of four main pillars in this value based approach as: Respect, Patient Focused, Transparent and Integrity; and including in their value statement: “My actions will be transparent, and I will treat everyone fairly and with respect.” Unfortunately these values seem to be only words spawned by a consulting company.

To treat everyone fairly and with respect means not to discriminate against anyone or any group. Unfortunately, the direction form GSK’s leadership seems clear. If you are a white male do not expect to be hired or promoted, no matter how qualified you are or how many years of service you have with the company because diversity is key. Diversity should be encouraged, but not at the price of discrimination of others.

 

The days of the good old boys club are gone. Put on your big boy pants. There have been a number of white males promoted into VP and other spots. Do your research.

 

If you are gay or foreign, (not just British), you still have some chance. Hey, maybe you should join the Womyn's Leadership initiative...

 

It's women's not womyn's. Your statement is inappropriate and offensive. I'm going to let HR and legal know about it. Thanks for using a pc. We don't need people with your attitude and prejudice.

 

Since you know about the womens leadership initiative you are with gsk. Might want to review HR policy because your post violates that and cafepharma policy as well. Guess you dont realize it can be figured out who you are.

 

Go away, another dope who can't handle the truth! Bootlicker!

 

Assclown. You want to blame everything except yourself on why you arent getting promoted. There are white males promoted - just not you.

 

you are both r*****s

 

I can understand the frustration of the initial poster. As a Black male, it's almost laughable to see how many "minorities" , blacks, hispanics and primarily WHITE females...yes I said white females are getting a lot of high ranking positions. Take a look at our leadership team on any level and compare that to any organization. We are extemely obvious. But guess what Mr. White male, you've had 400 hundred years to get ahead and the world is still yours! Get up off your ass and make a difference!

 

I just farted..............and it was more interesting than what I am reading on this thread.

 

I never gave Ron Paul a second look until I heard something that struck a cord. Ron Paul said it best: "Entitlements are NOT Rights". You do not take away from one group to give it to another and call it a "right". Rights means you have a right to your life, your liberty, right to keep the fruits of your labor .... he said he doesn't like terms like gay rights, womens rights, minority rights, religious rights there's only one type of right: "the right to your liberty" this causes divisiveness when we see people in groups, for too long we punish groups so the answer then was 'lets relieve them by giving them affirmative action' both the wrongs if you think in terms of individiuals doesn't protect the individuals... one group insn't entitled to take something from somebody esle ... http://youtu.be/pfeTLDmJAyM

It's true, we, the govt/people, have preverted our good intentions thinking we need to right the wrong by separating groups. The job SHOULD always go to the most deserving, be it a man, woman, child, gay, straight, black, white, red, yellow!!! You have to put your big-boy or big-girl pants on and come to the challenge head-to-head. It's time we play fair in life and in business.

 

GSK Sales Director Claims He Was Fired For Being A Man

Share us on: By Joshua Alston

Law360, New York (July 03, 2013, 7:32 PM ET) -- GlaxoSmithKline LLC was hit last month with a gender discrimination suit in New Jersey state court from a former sales manager who says he was pushed out of his job for a less-qualified woman in order to fulfill a diversity initiative.
Joseph Cappellino filed his suit against the drug company in the Superior Court of New Jersey on June 14. Cappellino said in his complaint that GSK used the circumstances surrounding a training evaluation exam — one unrelated to or indicative of his job performance — as the false pretense under which he was terminated, when really the drugmaker aimed to replace him with a woman.

According to the complaint, Cappellino was employed as a regional sales manager for GSK’s oncology division until June 2011, ending a nearly 17 year tenure with the company. He said that he attended a training seminar in May 2011, during which the company rolled out its new sales competency model. Employees were required to take a written assessment following the seminar to gauge their familiarity with the new model, according to the filing, and would have to retake it if they did not pass.

The timed exam was designed to be taken online, Cappellino said, but he was not told he would need internet access to take it. As a result, Cappellino had to fill out his answers on an optical answer form, which no one else was required to do, the filing said. As he was only given an ink pen to complete the exam, Cappellino said he circled his answers on the exam and waited until time was called to transfer the answers to the form, rather than make permanent marks he may have wanted to change later.

After the exam, the complaint said, Cappellino was asked by a human resources representative if he had cheated on the test and if he had written his answers down only after time had been called. He attempted to explain what happened, and offered to retake the test, but was told it wasn’t necessary.

Next, after he spoke with a GSK vice president about the incident, Cappellino was called into a closed-door meeting with human resources and asked again about the circumstances around the exam, the document said. He offered to retake the exam, and was told once more by human resources that it was not necessary at the time, but that following a discussion with management, he might be asked to retake it in the future.

Instead, Cappellino said, he was terminated immediately and given the explanation that he had violated GSK company policy with inappropriate behavior during the exam. Cappellino's complaint said the test was never intended as a condition of employment, and that he had never been warned or disciplined about work performance. The complaint lists several commendations Cappellino received for his work.

The real reason for Cappellino’s termination, the complaint says, is a diversity program initiated by GSK in either 2010 or 2011 to place more women in sales leadership roles. In spite of a long-standing requirement that regional sales managers demonstrate skill at the district level before promoted, Cappellino said that rule was bent to facilitate the promotion of female employees.

“The policy was not relaxed for men, however, many of whom were passed over for promotion in favor of less qualified, younger women,” the complaint said. “GSK’s diversity initiative was discriminatory and unlawful on its face, as well as a violation of its own internal, published anti-discrimination policies.”

The complaint says Cappellino was pushed out and replaced by a younger woman who, to his knowledge, had no sales management experience.

Cappellino’s suit includes counts of breach of contract and violation of New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination, plus two counts of violating New York City’s Human Rights Law. Cappellino managed sales for a region including New York City and northern New Jersey.

The plaintiff seeks actual damages, including lost wages, bonuses and benefits, compensatory damages for emotional distress and humiliation, plus punitive damages, prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees and court costs.

Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Wednesday.

The plaintiff is represented by Christopher P. Kelly of Reppert Kelly LLC.

Representation information for GSK was not immediately available on Wednesday.

The case is Joseph Cappellino v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, et al., case number L-001643-13, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Morris County.

--Editing by Stephen Berg.

 

Finally, something I can agree with.

 

2day Womyn's Leadership Initiative seminar in RTP today and tomorrow. No men allowed, other than to bow and scrape.

 

Can you imagine what would happen today if a woman was told she did not get a promotion to a leadership role because she is a woman, or if that same scenario happened to a minority. People could lose their job over something like that, yet it happens to white males and gsk looks the other way. It has happened to at least 2 men.

 

For crying out loud, stop being so dense. Why do think that we HAVE this diversity silliness? Because we've been sued over and over for passing over (and not hiring) qualified "others", and going with less than qualified white men. What, you think a organization as big as ours just all of a sudden decides to hire and promote "others" on their own? No….our hand was forced. Claiming that you know 2 white men that have been passed over is pathetic in comparison. No disrespect meant to either man, but 2 guys…even 10 guys is not enough to counter the huge suits that forced our hand, diversity-wise.

I can't believe people here are so dense. Honest to God, I hope that you're all trolls…..

And for Pete's sake, stop with the "why can't we go with the best qualified?" and "two wrongs don't make a right" nonsense. When the hell have we ever hired and promoted the best? If you've been here as long as I, you can think of at least a dozen district and regional types (and above) that we ALL knew were inept, but were hooked in because they were political sycophants to someone a level or two above.

Cut me a friggin break.

 

Be careful, you might upset the crybaby with talk like that.

 

I probably wasn't clear enough, my bad on that one. I understand why we are doing what we are doing as far as our current hiring practices. In the past we did not tell women and minorities we were passing them over because they were women or minorities. Now in some cases we have told people they were not hired specifically because they are white males.What is happening at gsk is happening in many industries. We have not corrected the problem of discrimination , we have just shifted the problem to a new group. Sorry you got so upset, hope the rest of your day is better.

 

So are you saying that in order to atone for those past sins it's okay to degrade and dehumanize another group of people (who may be fully and perhaps "best" qualified) as long as that group is in the original "offending" group or race? So, are you saying it's okay to do that action for which we were sued by (females/minorities) to another group in order to "level out" that legally damaging behavior as long as it is to a group of people who are "politically safe" to do it to? Question: how are doing as a company relative to our performance after two and a half years of placing candidates in positions (leadership positions) based primarily on gender (maybe race and gender) and not on who is the best qualified?

 

Poster #16 here. We didn't have to tell "them", trust me. If they were already aboard with GSK and were hoping for a promotion, they knew. (Ever see how black people here bind tightly together at our meetings, or in the cafeteria on Crescent Drive? They talk, ya know!!)

Of course, new job candidates had no clue. I tried to hire a few great minority candidates, especially in the 2000-2002 explosion as we chased Novartis, Pfizer, and Merck's hiring blitzes. Nope. But during that time, I sure saw a lot of kids hired that were related to all types of headquarters people and managers. I heard my fellow managers make one or two off the cuff remarks that would get them fired today. (They didn't know that my fiancee was half Latina, so they felt comfortable talking trash about "others")

From my experience, we did this mess to ourselves. Just like the way that we forced DOJ's hand with the $3B fine. We're reaping what we sowed: weeds.