A US energy company based in Wisconsin has been accused of overstepping its bounds by requiring an employee to undergo medical exams and inquiries, which a lawsuit contends were not job-related or consistent with business necessity.
The lawsuit, brought by federal body the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), is the first to
directly challenge a company’s wellness programme under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Orion Energy Systems is accused of violating federal law by requiring an employee, Wendy Schobert, to undergo multiple range-of-motion tests and provide complete medical history information to
participate in a wellness programme, according to an article by
hreonline.com.
When Schobert declined to participate in the programme which was ‘mandatory’, Orion shifted responsibility for payment of the entire premium for her employee health benefits to her and, shortly thereafter, terminated her employment contract – according to the suit.
“The penalty for not participating was paying 100 per cent of the premium cost for health benefits or US$413 (€319, £255) monthly,” said John Hendrickson, regional attorney for the EEOC’s Chicago district.
According to the EEOC, Orion wanted Schobert to use a range-of-motion machine up to four minutes at least 16 times a month and as a prerequisite, she was asked to fill out a medical history form, waive any damages from using equipment and undergo a health-risk assessment.
“You could do that kind of thing in connection with a wellness programme, if it were voluntary,” said Hendrickson. “This was an involuntary programme, coupled with those invasive inquiries, which were not shown to be justified in terms of business necessity and being job-related.”
Hendrickson added that as well as working out if
a wellness programme is voluntary or not, inquiries must not violate the ADA by asking for more information than is required and must not be used to affect a person’s employment.
Under the ADA, employee medical exams must be job-related and consistent with business necessity.
Alternatives must also be offered to employees who cannot meet the standard wellness programme targets.
Steven B. Harz, a partner in the labour and employment practice group at law firm Archer & Greiner commented: “Prior to this case, I am not aware of any other instance where the EEOC tackled an issue in this area, other than actual medical exams. Here, they are tackling an issue related to the entirety of the wellness programme and whether or not that programme was voluntary and consistent with business necessity. That’s quite an extension.”
Harz believes that this case’s outcome is likely to affect state employment and nondiscrimination laws, which often mirror federal measures’ interpretation.
