In Lowe v. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., et al., the Northern District of California dismissed another alleged class action lawsuit, albeit for different reasons. In the Lowe case, the plaintiffs claimed that the price of Walgreen`s female hair growth treatment (a generic alternative to Rogaine) was nearly 1.5 times higher than the alternative marketed by men. The applicant claimed that the products contained identical active ingredients and that the only differences were in the dosing regimen and price tag. The court justified the dismissal in two respects. First, the court ruled that the plaintiff`s consumer protection requests were anticipated because under the Federal Food, Drug Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”), Walgreens` generic product labels had to accurately reflect the branded label. To the extent that the applicant claimed that the product labels were misleading, such claims were expected. The court also dismissed the plaintiff`s lawsuit under the California Balance Act because the law does not apply to property, but to “accommodations, benefits, facilities, privileges or services.” Lowe appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit. We have already documented an emerging trend in legislation and litigation related to the “pink tax” – a gender-based pricing phenomenon that is expected to drive up the prices of goods and services marketed to women, compared to substantially similar alternatives marketed to men. As expected, the past two years have seen an increase in litigation (which has been largely unsuccessful) and legislative action (some completed and some pending). Last year, we discussed a blow to the pink tax theory of liability in Schulte v. Conopco, d/b/a Unilever, et al. In Schulte, plaintiffs alleged that various manufacturers and retailers of personal care products violated the Missouri Merchandizing Practices Act (MMPA) by charging more for deodorants marketed to women than for allegedly similar deodorants marketed to men.
The product lines in question contained similar but not identical ingredients, were available in different sizes and were available in different fragrances (fifteen “feminine” fragrances from the range marketed for women and five “masculine” fragrances from the range marketed for men). The Eastern District of Missouri dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that “Missouri law does not require identical products to be sold at the same price” and that the plaintiff`s remedy “is in the law, not in the litigation.” The Eighth Judicial District confirmed this on the grounds that the complainant had confused “sexist marketing with gender discrimination”. In making a claim, the court ruled that the plaintiff had to argue that the only difference between the products was the price and the marketing purpose. Given that the applicant has admitted here that the products are indeed different, a termination is appropriate. One reason for low pay in public law may be that women tend to concentrate in certain professions (pink-collar ghettos)[2] and focus on priorities other than pay. Women are less likely to push for higher wages than men – and therefore, where women accumulate, lower wages too. This occupational segregation has various causes, including the fact that men generally do not accept low-paid work, while women often do. Overall, women and men can lead them to divide into different income scales. [3] As reported in the Legal Times blog, Tuesday`s “Managing the Law Firm Labor Force” panel highlighted some provocative ideas about firing lawyers at the Law Firm Evolution conference in Georgetown. According to research by two business school professors, Paul Oyer and Scott Schaefer, younger lawyers are more likely to be fired than older lawyers, and “school systems” carry more weight than the reputation of law school. In other words, whether your JD says Harvard Law School or Thomas M.
Cooley Law School makes little difference when pink scraps of paper are handed out — unless a partner in your office attends the same school. At the moment, I am not practising as a lawyer. After almost seven years as a public advocate, I now work in a career development office at law school, helping students who want to work in the public sector. So I`m typical of women lawyers: working in the public sector and leaving the practice of law. The company, formerly known as Thomas Pink before the French luxury goods group bought the shirt manufacturer and retailer in 1999, has not been physically marketed since last year. In January, however, a new online platform was launched with the message: “Donât fret – we are soon again.
