Yale's wellness program requires workers and other family memberson the health plan to submit to certain screenings and tests and toconsult with a health coach if they have certainconditions. (Photo: Shutterstock)

Yale University faces a class action lawsuit in response to itsemployee wellness program, with plaintiffs arguing that theuniversity has illegally coerced workers into sharing privatemedical information.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of union-represented employeesof the university, many of whom work in clerical or technicalroles. Attorneys at a local law firm are getting assistance fromlawyers at the AARP Foundation, which has successfully challenged wellness programs inthe past.

The suit says Yale's “Health Expectation Program” violates theAmericans With Disabilities Act and the Genetic InformationNondiscrimination Act by charging employees who choose not toparticipate in the program $25 a week, or $1,300 a year.

The program requires workers and other family members on thehealth plan to submit to certain screenings and tests and toconsult with a health coach if they have certain conditions.

“This is a particularly important issue for older workers, whoare more likely to have disabilities and medical conditions — suchas diabetes, heart disease and cancer — that are at risk of beingrevealed by wellness questionnaires and exams,” AARP FoundationPresident Lisa Marsh Ryerson said in a statement. “(I)t hitslow-income workers the hardest. Allowing employers to financiallycoerce workers into relinquishing their personal health informationis a clear violation of medical privacy and civil rightsprotections.”

Until recently, rules established by the Equal EmploymentOpportunity Commission allowed employers to provide financialincentives for employees who “voluntarily” participate in wellnessprograms, as long as the incentive did not exceed 30 percent of theoverall cost of the individual health plan.

In 2016, however, AARP sued to overturn the EEOC rules, arguingthat the cost of refusing participation meant that some wellnessprograms were only “voluntary” in theory. The U.S. District Courtfor the District of Columbia ruled in August 2017 there was nobasis for the 30 percent limit and ordered the EEOC to review itsrules.

While the EEOC has vacated the 30 percent limit, the currentrules do not explicitly prohibit employers from offering financialincentives in exchange for wellness program participation. Thelegal landscape is therefore murky.

Read more: 

• Employee wellness programs and compliance: What to know rightnow
• Employers don't need to compensate for time spenton wellness activities, DOL says
• Walmart latest employer to add health and wellnesslegal counsel