Employers, take warning!
A federal judge in Illinois refused this week to dismiss a class action lawsuit brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act based on a "voluntary" wellness program.
Employers should review their wellness programs and determine whether any monetary incentives for participation are so sweet that employees may feel they have no choice but to participate. If so, then the program may not be "voluntary," and any requests for medical information in connection with the program could run afoul of the ADA.
ADA review
In addition to prohibiting discrimination based on disabilities and requiring reasonable accommodations, the ADA has some significant provisions relating to employees' medical information. Those provisions apply to all employees, not just employees with disabilities.
Here is the quick and dirty:
- An employer cannot request medical information from an applicant before a conditional offer of employment has been made. Period.
- After a conditional offer of employment has been made, the employer can require the offeree to have a medical examination or fill out a medical questionnaire as long as it does the same for all offerees in the same job category. And, of course, with limited exceptions the medical information obtained cannot be used against the offeree.
- Once the offeree becomes an "employee," the employer can request medical information only if the request is "job-related and consistent with business necessity."
- BUT . . . if the employer has a voluntary wellness program, it can ask for employee medical information in that connection without violating the ADA. This could include tons of information that is not "job-related and consistent with business necessity," such as routine blood work, weigh-ins, BMI measurements, blood pressure readings, and the like.
- Any medical information obtained from an employee must be kept confidential and separate from the employee's personnel file.
Again, these rules apply to everybody -- employees with disabilities, and employees without disabilities.
The wellness incentive lawsuit
A Wisconsin-based employer and its Illinois subsidiary had a wellness program that it (they?) considered to be "voluntary." No one was fired for refusing to participate. No one, as far as we can tell, was denied a promotion or subjected to unfair terms and conditions of employment because they refused to participate.
That sounds pretty "voluntary" to me, Robin!
Me too. Except for one thing. According to the lawsuit, participants in the wellness program got a nice financial "discount" on their health insurance premiums. Non-participants, including the plaintiffs, were not eligible for the discount.
The additional cost of health insurance coverage for one of the plaintiffs, who had family coverage, was more than $1,800 a year ($34.81 per week).
To many people, $1,800 a year is a lot of money. It may even be enough to "incentivize" them to participate in an employer wellness program and submit to biometric and health screening when they'd really prefer not to.
In other words, the plaintiffs argue that the discount for participation is so significant that it makes participation in the wellness program "not voluntary." And if participation is not voluntary, then requesting the information is a violation of the ADA.
The employer tried to get the lawsuit dismissed, arguing that it wasn't "penalizing" employees for non-participation but only "incentivizing" participation. Therefore, the employer argued, the program was voluntary, and the lawsuit had no merit.
But the plaintiffs argued that the lack of incentives for non-participants was, in effect, a penalty for non-participation.
The judge ruled this week that the lawsuit could proceed based on what the plaintiffs had alleged.
And did I mention that it's a putative class action?
Much more to come!
The court was ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted (also known as Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure). Motions to dismiss are generally heard at the very earliest stages of the litigation, and the court is required to assume that the facts alleged in the complaint are true. If, with that assumption, the lawsuit states a valid legal claim, then the judge has to let the case move forward. The parties will then engage in discovery and file appropriate motions later, based on the evidence in the case.
So, it is possible that this employer will prevail later on. Even if the class is certified, maybe it will turn out that the employees all make $1 million a year, in which case the $1,800 annual hit on health insurance may not be a big deal. Or maybe the plaintiffs' figures on the discount are not accurate, and the incentive is really only 34 cents a month, not $34.81 a week.
But litigation is expensive, and class litigation significantly more so. Employers who offer incentives for participation in wellness programs should determine whether any changes should be made to minimize their litigation risks.
Oh, one more thing. Liability under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act is also a possibility. In another case from a couple of years ago, a federal judge refused to dismiss all GINA claims in a lawsuit against the City of Chicago based on similar allegations. In the Chicago case, the City required non-participating employees to pay a monthly penalty of $50. If their covered spouses also declined to participate, the employees had to pay $100 a month. The GINA claims of employees with individual coverage were dismissed because no "genetic information" was sought. But the GINA claims of the employees whose spouses were covered were allowed to proceed. (Under the GINA, information about a spouse's health is the employee's "genetic information." This never made sense to me because spouses are not relatives, but Congress didn't ask for my opinion.)
- Partner
Robin has more than 30 years' experience counseling employers and representing them before government agencies and in employment litigation involving Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with ...
Robin Shea has 30 years' experience in employment litigation, including Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (including the Amendments Act).
Continue Reading
Subscribe
Contributors
- William A. "Zan" Blue, Jr.
- Obasi Bryant
- Kenneth P. Carlson, Jr.
- James M. Coleman
- Cara Yates Crotty
- Lara C. de Leon
- Christopher R. Deubert
- Joyce M. Dos Santos
- Colin Finnegan
- Steven B. Katz
- Ellen C. Kearns
- F. Damon Kitchen
- David C. Kurtz
- Angelique Groza Lyons
- John E. MacDonald
- Alyssa K. Peters
- Sarah M. Phaff
- David P. Phippen
- William K. Principe
- Sabrina M. Punia-Ly
- Angela L. Rapko
- Rachael Rustmann
- Paul Ryan
- Piyumi M. Samaratunga
- Robin E. Shea
- Kristine Marie Sims
- David L. Smith
- Jill S. Stricklin
- Jack R. Wallace
Archives
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010