A crucial win for employers in EEOC’s latest wellness lawsuit
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) may have just filed its lawsuit against Honeywell’s wellness program, but one of the agency’s requests has already been shot down. What does this mean for the EEOC’s crusade against “illegal” wellness programs — and for employers?
As HR Benefits Alert reported previously, the third — and latest — EEOC suit was filed against Honeywell International, Inc.
Essentially, the EEOC’s suit claims Honeywell’s wellness program violates both the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) because of penalties it imposes on employees who refuse to participate in its biometric screening program.
Unlike the previous two wellness suits, which only allege ADA violations, Honeywell is the first organization facing GINA charges as a direct result of its wellness program.
Restraining order, injunction requested
As part of the lawsuit, the EEOC had asked for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction against Honeywell’s wellness program.
While the suit will move forward, the District Court for the District of Minnesota denied the restraining order and injunction requests.
And that small victory has garnered strong words of a praise from prominent industry groups, such as the American Benefits Council.
American Benefits Council President James A. Klein called the district court’s actions “welcome relief for company sponsors of employee wellness program.”
Underlying problem: ‘Rules that do not exist’
As these wellness-based lawsuits by the EEOC increase, you can expect greater resistance and more vocal criticism from the Benefits industry about the agency’s actions.
And that all stems from a lack of guidance by the EEOC on the specific types of wellness-based activities it considers illegal.
Klein summed up the main issue by saying:
“Unfortunately, the EEOC decided to pursue litigation before issuing guidance on this matter. This is very frustrating for employers who care about the well-being of their employees and take seriously their compliance obligations. It is impossible for employers to abide by rules that do not exist.”
Although the EEOC hasn’t issued formal guidance on wellness programs, the agency’s flurry of lawsuits focus on the idea of “voluntary” wellness programs.
In each of the EEOC suits, the agency alleges the wellness programs aren’t truly voluntary either because of “dire consequences” the program imposes on workers who choose not to participate or because of health assessments which are not “job-related and consistent with business necessity” (because they were preventive in nature) and violate the ADA’s rules regarding employee medical exams and inquiries.
