Pfizer, manufacturer of blockbuster migraine drug Nurtec, claims that as you would expect, it is a “safe space” for its own employees who suffer from migraine: “remote options can help employees retain their productivity while prioritizing their health.”
But a Charge filed by “Jennifer” with the EEOC tells another story. Jennifer was a member of the team which created Pfizer’s $ 1 billion cash cow Nurtec. Jennifer was herself diagnosed with chronic migraine in 2020. For the next four years Jennifer worked remotely while helping to develop and market Nurtec. Remote work allowed her to be productive and help other migraine sufferers who now depend on Nurtec.
In January 2024 Pfizer announced that all US employees were required to spend 2.5 days a week in the office. Given Pfizer’s published guidance that “remote options can help employees [suffering from migraine] retain their productivity while prioritizing their health,” her success on Nurtec working remotely for four years, and the fact that her working from home cost Pfizer zero, Jennifer expected that her requested accommodation–continuing to work remotely–would be granted.
Pfizer’s response was: “If you are experiencing frequent migraines, then you are not able to work even while at home and should file for an STD or FMLA.” This was obviously false and Pfizer knew it.
Jennifer’s neurologist was also a Pfizer expert. She asked him to explain to Pfizer why working from home was a necessary accommodation. He wrote to Pfizer that “The American Migraine Foundation … recommends remote work as an accommodation and this accommodation is reasonable and necessary for her continued employment.” Pfizer’s Disability/ADA Appeal team responded that it had:
reviewed . . . the medical information from your healthcare provider [its own expert]. . . [B]ased on the description of you not being able to sit up for long periods of time, inability to think or concentrate chronically, this appears you are unable to perform your job duties regardless of location
He did not say she was chronically unable to think. He said she suffered from chronic migraine, meaning she had headaches on 15 or more days per month, and at least 8 of those headache days have features of migraine.
Nonetheless Pfizer instructed Jennifer that her final option was appeal to the Executive Leadership Team (ELT), headed by Dr. Albert Bourla, Pfizer’s CEO, pictured above. Pfizer’s own policy, which recognizes that by working from home and controlling their environment migraine sufferers can avoid the triggers that cause their migraines, proved too challenging for the ELT to apply, and it also denied Jennifer a work from home accommodation.
On October 10, Jennifer had a meeting with her senior manager. He stated that “the ELT has denied all exemption requests submitted to them and that they already denied your specific exemption request.” Later that day he said Pfizer would fire her if she did not spend 2.5 days a week at the office. Courts treat this as an illegal firing due to disability.
Undaunted, Jennifer pushed back, emailing management on November 3 asking for time for her attorney and doctor to speak to the relevant parties at Pfizer. The Nurse Practitioner assigned by Pfizer, refused to speak to Pfizer’s own expert, Jennifer’s neurologist, so on December 3 he wrote again on her behalf pointing out that: [Jennifer] has already proven her ability to work remotely without disruption, . . This demonstrates that her remote work arrangement will not negatively impact team dynamics or operational efficiency.
No physician at Pfizer ever evaluated Jennifer’s request for accommodation or Pfizer’s own expert’s two letters. ELT head Dr. Albert Bourla is a veterinarian, not a physician.
After correspondence with Jennifer’s attorney, Pfizer suddenly decided not to terminate her but to reorganize her seven-person department. Coincidentally she was the only employee in her department affected by the reorganization. On December 9, Jennifer’s boss informed her that her “role” had been “eliminated.” She assured Jennifer that the reorganization was “unrelated to the accommodation process.”
Although it was unrelated, four days later Pfizer sought to buy her silence and avoid having to answer in court for its actions, in return for $67,108, Jennifer releasing Pfizer, its officers and directors—which included CEO Albert Bourla—from any claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act and agreeing not to “do anything which damages, the Company or its . . . reputation.”
Jennifer declined Pfizer’s offer, so that she could tell her story, all of which is taken from Pfizer documents and the papers which she filed with the EEOC. Anyone who has experienced or witnessed a failure to accommodate a disability at Pfizer is encouraged to contact Employment Law Firm P.C. by emailing us at attorney@employmentlawfirmpc.com, texting us at 914-425-5834, filling out a contact form on our website, or calling 888-369-1119 ext 1.