A seemingly divided Supreme Court on Monday weighed a potentially costly challenge to the pharmaceutical industry's practice of not paying overtime to its sales representatives.

The justices questioned whether the federal law governing overtime pay should apply to the roughly 90,000 people who try to persuade doctors to prescribe certain drugs to their patients.

Many sales jobs are exempt from overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act. But unlike typical salespeople who often work on commission, pharmaceutical sales representatives cannot seal a deal with doctors. Federal law, in fact, forbids any binding agreement by a doctor to prescribe a specific drug.

Two salesmen who once worked for drug maker GlaxoSmithKline filed a class-action lawsuit claiming that they were not paid for the 10 to 20 hours they worked each week on average outside the normal business day. Their jobs required them to meet with doctors in their offices, but also to attend conventions, dinners, even golf outings.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was among several justices who wondered about limits on overtime opportunities if the court were to rule for the sales reps. A court filing by the industry said drug companies could be on the hook for billions of dollars in past overtime.

The California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that employers are under no obligation to ensure that workers take legally mandated lunch breaks in a case that affects thousands of businesses and millions of workers.

The unanimous opinion came after workers' attorneys argued that abuses are routine and widespread when companies aren't required to issue direct orders to take the breaks. They claimed employers take advantage of workers who don't want to leave colleagues during busy times.

The case was initially filed nine years ago against Dallas-based Brinker International, the parent company of Chili's and other eateries, by restaurant workers complaining of missed breaks in violation of California labor law.

But the high court sided with businesses when it ruled that requiring companies to order breaks is unmanageable and that those decisions should be left to workers. The decision provided clarity that businesses had sought regarding the law.

The opinion written by Associate Justice Kathryn Werdegar explained that state law does not compel an employer to ensure employees cease all work during meal periods. It stated that while employers are required to free workers of job duties for a 30-minute meal break, the employee is at liberty to use the time as they choose even if it's to work, she wrote.

The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that states cannot be sued under the Family and Medical Leave Act for refusing to give an employee time off to recover from an illness. One justice said the decision "dilutes the force" of the law that allows millions of working Americans time off to take care of sick family members or to have children.

The high court refused to let Daniel Coleman sue the Maryland state Court of Appeals for damages for firing him after he asked for sick leave, blaming Congress for not equating family care and self-care when lawmakers wrote the Family and Medical Leave Act.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the controlling opinion, said Congress did not investigate self-care the way it did family care when it passed the FMLA, leaving little "widespread evidence of sex discrimination or sex stereotyping in the administration of sick leave."

"Documented discrimination against women in the general workplace is a persistent unfortunate reality, and we must assume, a still prevalent wrong. An explicit purpose of the Congress in adopting the FMLA was to improve workplace conditions for women. But states may not be subject to suits for damages based on violations of a comprehensive statute unless Congress has identified a specific pattern of constitutional violations by state employers," said Kennedy, who was joined in his opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

A Northern California jury has awarded $167 million to a former hospital employee who claimed in a lawsuit that she was sexually harassed at work and fired after she repeatedly complained.

The federal court jury found Sacramento's Mercy General Hospital and its parent, Catholic Healthcare West, liable on Wednesday for $125 million in punitive damages and $42.7 million in compensation for lost wages and mental anguish in the lawsuit filed by Ani Chopourian.

The 45-year-old Chopourian - a surgical physician's assistant - said she was subject to unwanted sexual advances and touching and sexual conversations among physicians and staff while working at Mercy from 2006 to 2008.

She alleged in her lawsuit against the hospital that she was fired for repeatedly complaining about sexual harassment.

Hospital officials say she was fired for misconduct, and they will appeal.

The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in a high-interest case contending restaurant managers must order meal and rest breaks for tens of thousands of workers rather than leave compliance to their discretion.

The case was initially filed eight years ago against Brinker International, the parent company of Chili's and other eateries, by chain restaurant workers complaining of missed breaks in violation of California labor law.

The case has generated immense interest among labor-law lawyers and a variety of industries grappling with defining responsibilities for meal and rest periods.

Lawyers for the workers argue that not ordering the breaks is a passive way to take advantage of workers who don't want to leave colleagues at busy times.

Brinker's attorney countered that requiring businesses to control the breaks of workers is unmanageable and that taking such breaks should be left to the discretion of employees.

The court's decision is due in 90 days, with the resolution possibly worth millions of dollars to lawyers and companies enmeshed in class-action lawsuits hinging on the issue.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has sued a national insurance company, contending the firm violated federal law by refusing to hire a North Carolina man after he disclosed he was participating in a methadone treatment program for a drug addiction.

The suit was filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Raleigh against United Insurance Co. of America, said EEOC attorney Lynette Barnes.

The complaint argues the firm violated federal disability discrimination law by refusing to hire Craig Burns, 30, who applied for a job in the firm's Raleigh office in December of 2009. The firm made a conditional offer of employment to Burns the following month, depending upon his passing a drug test, the complaint said.

The test showed the presence of methadone in his system, so Burns submitted a letter to the firm from his treatment provider saying he was participating in a supervised methadone treatment program and taking legally prescribed medication as part of the treatment, the complaint said.

Upon receiving this information, United Insurance notified Barnes he was not eligible to be hired and withdrew the employment offer, the complaint said.

Barnes said the action violates the Americans With Disabilities Act, which protects employees and applicants from discrimination based on their disabilities. A recovering drug addict is covered under the act, the attorney said in an interview.

A Wisconsin court hearing could offer some kind of clarity on whether a new law eliminating most of state workers' collective bargaining rights has gone into effect.

Republican Gov. Scott Walker's administration insists it has, while other state and municipal leaders dispute that.

A court hearing is scheduled for Tuesday morning.

The latest over the collective bargaining law began Friday when the nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau published the law by posting it on a website. Walker said that was all that was needed for it to take effect.

Typically, a law goes into effect when it's published by the secretary of state, but Democrat Doug La Follette had been prevented from taking action by a temporary restraining order.