An Oregon federal judge tossed a former AstraZeneca sales manager's whistleblower claims that she was fired for accusing a colleague of promoting off-label drugs, in a case that took a trip to the Ninth Circuit and back.

Suzanne Ivie, who worked for AstraZeneca out of Utah as an executive district sales manager, claimed in her 2019 suit that she was fired after taking medical leave and reporting concerns that a colleague was partaking in illegal off-label drug promotion. (Press Association via AP Images) Magistrate Judge Jolie A. Russo handed AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP summary judgment Wednesday, ruling Suzanne Ivie, a Utah resident, didn't have enough of a connection to Oregon to invoke its whistle-blower protections. A jury had awarded Ivie $2.4 million in the case before Judge Russo scrapped it, leading Ivie to appeal to the Ninth Circuit, which reinstated her claims and sent them back to Judge Russo.

"It is axiomatic that Oregon's statutes — irrespective of the particular conduct that they regulate — do not protect non-residents unless otherwise specified and in the absence of any connection to the forum," the judge said. "This has been the law of the state for 75 years."

Ivie, who worked for AstraZeneca out of Utah as an executive district sales manager, claimed in her 2019 suit that she was fired after taking medical leave and reporting concerns that a colleague was partaking in illegal off-label drug promotion. Following a weeklong trial in June 2021, a jury knocked down her age discrimination claims but awarded her $1.9 million in compensatory damages and about $510,000 in back pay on her whistleblower allegations.

In November 2021, Judge Russo scrapped the $2.4 million award and granted AstraZeneca's motion for judgment as a matter of law. While Ivie oversaw sales representatives who worked out of Oregon, the judge said this connection to the state wasn't enough for her to sue the pharmaceutical company under Oregon's more favorable whistleblower laws.

On appeal to the Ninth Circuit, an appellate panel revived Ivie's case after faulting AstraZeneca for failing to raise concerns about her case's connection to Oregon before the trial took place. The panel instructed the district court to reconsider whether AstraZeneca was owed a new trial. In October 2024, Judge Russo granted AstraZeneca's bid for a new trial, but the parties agreed to hash out whether Ivie's case had enough of a connection to Oregon through summary judgment motions.

AstraZeneca argued to the court that Ivie's case can't stay in play because none of the facts or events related to her Oregon whistleblower claims occurred in Oregon. Ivie countered that she managed an Oregon territory, the company trained her under Oregon law to sell its products, and she also trained employees under Oregon law to ensure sales were made properly.

Ivie also argued that Oregon's whistleblower statute does not require proof of a connection to the state. Judge Russo rejected this position, stating that Oregon's laws do not protect nonresidents and that the laws of the state do not have an extraterritorial effect unless a party is doing business in that state.

Judge Russo said the court has previously made clear that Oregon's workplace antibias statute applies only to those who reside or work in the state, or to discriminatory acts that take place in Oregon. The additional discovery Ivie conducted following the reversal of the jury's verdict and the Ninth Circuit's order did not show she resided or was physically present in Oregon during the timeframe she complained about off-label marketing or took medical leave, the judge said.

Ivie did not have enough of a connection to the state by training employees who lived in Oregon or overseeing a territory that included the state in order to invoke its whistleblower protections, the judge said.

"This discovery reinforced that all decisions regarding plaintiff's complaints and termination were made outside Oregon," the judge said. "Given these undisputed facts, plaintiff's assertions surrounding the impact of her metaphysical presence in Oregon are not convincing."

Representatives for Ivie and AstraZeneca did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Ivie is represented by R. Scott Oswald and Anita M. Chambers of The Employment Law Group PC, by Daniel Woofter of Russell & Woofter LLC and by Ashley A. Marton of Cambreleng & Marton LLC.

AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals is represented by Anne M. Talcott of Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt PC and by John C. Dodds, Ryan P. McCarthy, Thomas M. Peterson and M. Abigail West of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

The case is Ivie v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, case number 3:19-cv-01657, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.