by Clifford J. Schoner and Brian M. Pinheiro
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has upheld a federal district court ruling that a wellness program instituted by Broward County, Florida, does not violate the general prohibition under the Americans with Disabilities Act against non-voluntary medical examinations and inquiries that are not job-related.
In Seff v. Broward County Florida, the court determined that the wellness program qualified for an ADA safe harbor that applies to a bona fide employee benefit arrangement, the terms of which are based on underwriting risks, classifying risks, or administering risks as long as the arrangement is not a subterfuge to evade ADA requirements.
The Broward County wellness program featured a health risk assessment and certain biometric screenings. It was available to employees participating in the County's health and pharmacy benefit programs and administered by the health insurer of these programs. County employees who failed to complete the health risk assessment or submit to the biometric screenings were required to pay an additional $20 per paycheck for coverage under the County's health and pharmacy benefit programs. The County communicated the terms of its wellness program to employees in at least two handouts.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which enforces the ADA, did not participate in this case. At least unofficially, the EEOC has addressed the permissibility of wellness programs under the ADA in the context of another exception for "voluntary" wellness programs. In enforcement guidance published in 2000, the EEOC took the position that "[a] wellness program is 'voluntary' as long as an employer neither requires participation nor penalizes employees who do not participate." The 11th Circuit's decision suggests that at least in some circumstances, a "non-voluntary" wellness program can be offered without running afoul of the ADA.
Employers should keep in mind that wellness programs need to comply not only with the ADA, but with requirements set forth in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), and, beginning in 2014, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA).
Lexis.com subscribers can access a Lexis enhanced version of the Seff v. Broward County, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 17501 (11th Cir. Fla. Aug. 20, 2012) decision with summary, headnotes, and Shepard's.
If you have any questions about wellness programs and ADA, HIPAA, GINA, and PPACA compliance, please contact Brian M. Pinheiro at 215.864.8511 or email@example.com, Clifford J. Schoner at 215.864.8626 or firstname.lastname@example.org, or the Ballard Spahr attorney with whom you work.
Copyright © 2012 by Ballard Spahr LLP.www.ballardspahr.com(No claim to original U.S. government material.)
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission of the author and publisher.
This alert is a periodic publication of Ballard Spahr LLP and is intended to notify recipients of new developments in the law. It should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general informational purposes only, and you are urged to consult your own attorney concerning your situation and specific legal questions you have.
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions, connect with us through our corporate site.