Three former employees of large pharmas, including Novo and Sanofi, share how they were let go. While they appreciated some aspects of their experiences, such as severance and outplacement resources, they criticized a lack of public transparency, a mishandled notification and puzzling outsourcing.
How Big Pharma companies handle job cuts matters to employees, as seen in responses to an ongoing BioSpace survey collecting layoff stories and during a recent interview. From how they got the news to the severance packages they received, three biopharma professionals discuss what they thought of the way their former employers handled their exits. Two also share how their subsequent job searches have gone.
Getting the news at home, lack of external transparency not ideal
A principal scientist who requested anonymity had a mixed experience being laid off by a Big Pharma company where he had worked for a decade. The pharma, which he preferred not to name, let him go in March as part of a structural reorganization, he told BioSpace in a recent interview. The company was expanding into newer modalities and downsized the one he was working on, closing two departments while consolidating operations into one site.
The scientist learned he was out of a job when a vice president visited the location where he worked, gathered everyone together and announced the layoffs, including the reason behind them. He got the news at home, as he was working remotely that day. Reflecting on that moment, he said he wishes he had been at the office.
“I would have much rather have been on-site because it would have been, obviously, difficult with your co-workers, but to have that kind of shared trauma together would have been better for me,” he explained.
Hearing the news in a group setting rather than one-on-one didn’t bother the scientist.
“I think it was just shocking, regardless,” he said.
What did bother him was the pharma not publicly announcing the layoffs, which he noted other companies have done when trimming their workforces. He noted that the only press release the business issued at that time focused on another matter. It felt, he said, like the pharma was perhaps trying to hide the cuts from the public.
While the scientist didn’t like that aspect of the layoffs, he was satisfied with his severance package. Those let go received around 10 weeks of salary plus additional pay based on years of service and age over a set number, he said. He ended up with almost six months of pay. On top of that, the company also paid out unused vacation time and covered health insurance for however long severance lasted.
It took the scientist six months to land his next position, at a biotech. He estimated that he applied for 20 to 30 openings and noted that he was a bit selective during his job search, with a preference for smaller companies for two reasons. First, he said, many friends and former colleagues had shifted from a pharma to a biotech and had told him about the benefits of such a move. Second, biotechs had more openings than large pharmas for someone at his level with his expertise.
“So, the search was focused on smaller companies just because that’s where a lot of the positions were,” he said. “But I think it was also a welcome change.”
Missed notification gives false hope on job security
One BioSpace survey respondent criticized how their former employer, Novo, handled recent layoffs. They were among the roughly 400 people the Danish pharma let go in early May at a Bloomington, Indiana, sterile fill/finish site previously owned by Catalent. Novo acquired the contract development and manufacturing organization (CDMO) in 2024 and now owns and operates the Bloomington location.
The respondent shared that when Novo told employees it would announce layoffs in a month, people recalled how the last workforce reduction at that site, when Catalent owned and operated it, had gone. Some had learned they’d lost their jobs not from their employer but when an employee outplacement services company contacted them. Others had found out when their badges didn’t work at the office. Because the Bloomington site’s HR team was still the same, the respondent noted, there were low expectations for how the latest job cuts would go.
“And sure enough, despite the company change, there was a screw up,” they wrote.
Employees were told layoff calls would be from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., and most people were allowed to work remotely so they could be at home if they got a call, the respondent noted. Those who didn’t hear from Novo by 8 p.m. thought they were safe. That group included the survey respondent, who had previously escaped a handful of layoffs at the Bloomington site.
However, when they went to check Microsoft Teams on their work phone, their access to Teams through Novo didn’t work. They contacted their manager on LinkedIn and, shortly after, learned they had been let go, along with their entire department. For some reason, the respondent’s name had not been on the HR team’s list of people to call.
In addition to the way they learned they had been let go, the respondent took issue with Novo’s explanation for the workforce reduction.
Nobody clearly stated the reason for the layoff. We got the typical corporate mumbo jumbo and heard the word ‘sustainable’ too many times.
“Nobody clearly stated the reason for the layoff,” they wrote. “We got the typical corporate mumbo jumbo and heard the word ‘sustainable’ too many times.”
They noted, however, that at the end of the day, an FDA warning letter had led to lost CDMO business Novo had inherited from Catalent.
The agency’s November 2025 letter summarized significant violations of current good manufacturing practice regulations for finished pharmaceuticals at the Bloomington site. The FDA also issued complete response letters to Incyte, Regeneron and Scholar Rock, companies that were using the facility for fill/finish activities.
Job outsourcing amidst heavy workload proves frustrating
Another survey respondent expressed frustration with the reason they lost their position at Sanofi. In March 2025, their manager told them the pharma was outsourcing part of their job, and HR felt the employee wouldn’t have enough work left to justify the headcount. However, the respondent wrote, the responsibility was a minor one.
“In reality,” they added, “our whole team had been working to the point of burnout for over a year, and had every indication that this trend would continue for the foreseeable future. My manager had actually been trying to get 1-2 more headcount.”
Sanofi did handle one aspect of the layoffs in a way the respondent appreciated. They noted that they received a generous severance package and access to a career coaching and resume revising service that has helped them get job applications “past the ubiquitous bots” and secure some interviews.
However, in their survey comments left in August, over a year after their layoff, the respondent wrote that they had not yet landed a job. They described a frustrating search process that included having countless opportunities cancelled after they applied or interviewed. They also noted that hiring managers said they wanted to bring them back for second interviews but then ghosted them for months.
