Client Alerts & Insights
EEOC Offers Guidance On Employee Wellness Program Notices Required Under New Rules
June 28, 2016
On the heels of at least two discrimination lawsuits over employer wellness programs, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued two new rules on May 17, 2016 under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act (GINA) offering parameters for how employers can offer limited incentives for wellness plans without running afoul of the two laws.
One such parameter is the requirement that employers ensure that employees receive notice concerning the purpose of, and limits on, the wellness program. The EEOC followed up late last week with a sample of what that notice should include, as well as additional guidance on what employers have to do in order to comply with the requirements of the new rules.
In sum, the notice must describe what information will be collected, who will receive it, how it will be used, and how it will be kept confidential. Employees must receive the notice before providing any health information and with enough time to decide whether to participate, the EEOC said. If the wellness program provides the notice, the employer is still obligated ensure that their employees receive it. The agency also indicated that these notices will be scrutinized, and may wind up being used in court, where an employee claims they were unaware that a particular test was part of a wellness program. Consequently, it would be a best practice for employers to obtain some kind of acknowledgment of receipt of the notice from employees.
Although the EEOC’s new rules clarify and expand upon prior EEOC guidance on how a wellness program can safely dock in the safe harbor of the ADA’s general prohibition against medical examinations and inquiries; in many instances, several other laws, such as HIPAA and the Affordable Care Act, seek to regulate the same behavior. The resulting interplay between these laws can be particularly complex, and the advice of counsel is indispensable when navigating the waters of implementing, and maintaining, a wellness plan.
At minimum, employers must ensure that their wellness programs are voluntary, reasonably designed to promote health and prevent disease, and that employee medical information is kept confidential. Limited financial or other incentives are permissible, but employers cannot require employees to participate (or coerce, threaten, intimidate or harass anyone into participating), deny or limit health insurance for non-participation, or retaliate against those who don’t sign up. Permissible incentives under the rule are calculated based on a percentage of the cost of self-only health insurance coverage.
The obligation to provide the notice goes into effect on the first day of the plan year that begins on or after Jan. 1, 2017 for the plan that an employer uses to calculate the incentive limit.
For more information, please contact:
Mike Buck (mbuck@beneschlaw.com)
Eric Baisden (ebaisden@beneschlaw.com)
Joe Gross (jgross@beneschlaw.com
Steve Moss (smoss@beneschlaw.com)
Pete Kirsanow (pkirsanow@beneschlaw.com) or
Katie Tesner (ktesner@beneschlaw.com)
Latest News
The Coming State-Law Litigation Wave of 2026-27: “Subscription Trap” Class Actions
The subscription economy keeps growing—and so does the wave of class-action litigation targeting it. While the FTC’s regulatory efforts have drawn headlines, private class actions under state laws pose an even greater exposure risk.
Updates to Fees and Grace Periods for Nonimmigrant Visas
Starting September 9, 2026, the 9-11 Response Biometric Entry-Exit Fee will apply to H-1B and L-1 extension petitions filed by employers subject to the fee. Prior to the new rule, the fee was only required for (1) initial grant of status to a foreign national seeking H-1B or L-1 status and (2) a change of employer in the same status.
Third Circuit Decision Reshapes Creditor Standing in Successor Liability Disputes
The Third Circuit recently held that when determining whether a successor liability claim belongs to a bankruptcy estate, the key question is whether the claim seeks to remedy harm suffered by all creditors collectively or a unique injury suffered by a specific creditor. The fact that creditors may be permitted to bring the claim outside of bankruptcy is not, by itself, determinative.
CMS Proposes Sweeping Restrictions on Remote Patient Monitoring: The Outsourcing Ban, Reimbursement Revaluation and Potential Code Consolidation in the CY 2027 Physician Fee Schedule Proposed Rule
CMS’s CY 2027 Proposed Rule would significantly restrict Medicare reimbursement for Remote Patient Monitoring (RPM) and Remote Therapeutic Monitoring (RTM), including banning outsourced clinical staffing, adding new patient-relationship and initiating-visit requirements, reducing certain reimbursement rates, and exploring consolidation of existing billing codes.