AARP v. EEOC : Motion to Vacate Granted

  In AARP vs. EEOC, U.S. District Court Judge John D. Bates granted a motion by AARP to vacate the EEOC’s current wellness regulations, which allow companies to charge employees who decline to participate in wellness questionnaires and exams with penalties. The resulting decision is a win for workers seeking to protect their medical and genetic information but also creates uncertainty within the compliance landscape for employer wellness programs. Background and Decision A wellness program involving medical exams or inquiries must be voluntary in order to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act (GINA). Until this decision, “voluntary” was never defined. There had been almost no limitations, or even judicial or legislative guidance, on allowable penalties or incentives that can be tied to screenings or health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs). The only line was the Affordable Care Act’s 30%-of-total-health-benefit-spending limitation (50% for smokers). AARP vs. EEOC’s decision means that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission must rewrite its definition of “voluntary” to achieve consistency with the dictionary definition. Additionally, the EEOC must issue rules soon enough for employers to incorporate the new limits for incentives and penalties into their own wellness programs starting in January 2019. AARP sued the EEOC in October 2016 on the grounds that EEOC’s wellness rul...
Source: Policy and Medicine - Category: American Health Authors: Source Type: blogs