Union Workers File Civil Action Lawsuit Against Yale Over Employee Wellness Program

Jul 18 2019

As it appeared on WNPR
By NICOLE LEONARD

The AARP Foundation and a New Haven law firm have filed a class action lawsuit against Yale University over how the college implements its employee wellness program.

The lawsuit claims that Yale’s wellness program, which is marketed as a resource to help employees and their spouses improve their health, violates several discrimination and health privacy laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act.

“Congress wanted to make sure that people could protect themselves from having information potentially released,” said Dara Smith, senior attorney at AARP Foundation, “and so that’s really why this is a matter of civil rights as well as privacy protections.”

Several labor unions represent employees at Yale, including UNITE HERE Local 34 and Local 35, which together represent about 5,000 clerical, technical, cafeteria, maintenance and service union workers.

Members of these two unions say they risk financial punishment if they don’t participate in the “Health Expectations” wellness program, which is supposed to be voluntary.

According to the lawsuit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court of Connecticut, participants of the wellness program are required to complete preventative screenings and medical tests like mammograms, blood work, colonoscopies and annual physical exams, when age appropriate.

The program also collects insurance claims data and shares the information with a third-party vendor that uses the data to make sure employees are completing all the requirements, according to court documents. The data may also be shared with a vendor that may offer physical training opportunities.

But for workers and their spouses who opt out of the program because they don’t want to share private medical information or disclose an existing medical condition, or for employees who don’t fully comply with the program, they get charged a mandatory opt-out fee, which means $25 per week comes out of their paychecks.

That can add up to $1,300 a year, which Smith said “is about five and a half weeks worth of food, four months of utility costs, nearly a month’s worth of housing or a month of childcare, and that’s just in New Haven.”

Yale spokeswoman Karen Peart said in a statement Thursday that the university does not comment on pending litigation.

Employee wellness programs aren’t uncommon—in fact, it’s become an $8 billion industry in the United States. Some wellness programs use incentives like lower premium prices and other kinds of discounts to entice employees to participate. Others may also add a fine or fee for non-participating employees.

Smith, who is working on the case with local attorneys at Garrison, Levin-Epstein, Fitzgerald and Pirrotti, P.C., said that puts pressure on people to submit to medical requirements set by their employers.

“Typically, people would decide to get a mammogram, for instance, or a colonoscopy based on a doctor’s recommendation, and in consultation with their doctor about when and how and whether they’re going to do that, and so this really puts that into the workplace, and that’s the problem,” she said.

The class action lawsuit states that the plaintiffs are seeking a trial by jury in order to get Yale to remove any “opt-out” fees or fines, reinstate stronger protections for employee’s private health data and recover money for those who have been impacted by the fees.

The AARP Foundation and a New Haven law firm have filed a class action lawsuit against Yale University over how the college implements its employee wellness program.

The lawsuit claims that Yale’s wellness program, which is marketed as a resource to help employees and their spouses improve their health, violates several discrimination and health privacy laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act.

“Congress wanted to make sure that people could protect themselves from having information potentially released,” said Dara Smith, senior attorney at AARP Foundation, “and so that’s really why this is a matter of civil rights as well as privacy protections.”

Several labor unions represent employees at Yale, including UNITE HERE Local 34 and Local 35, which together represent about 5,000 clerical, technical, cafeteria, maintenance and service union workers.

Members of these two unions say they risk financial punishment if they don’t participate in the “Health Expectations” wellness program, which is supposed to be voluntary.

According to the lawsuit, which was filed in the U.S. District Court of Connecticut, participants of the wellness program are required to complete preventative screenings and medical tests like mammograms, blood work, colonoscopies and annual physical exams, when age appropriate.

The program also collects insurance claims data and shares the information with a third-party vendor that uses the data to make sure employees are completing all the requirements, according to court documents. The data may also be shared with a vendor that may offer physical training opportunities.

But for workers and their spouses who opt out of the program because they don’t want to share private medical information or disclose an existing medical condition, or for employees who don’t fully comply with the program, they get charged a mandatory opt-out fee, which means $25 per week comes out of their paychecks.

That can add up to $1,300 a year, which Smith said “is about five and a half weeks worth of food, four months of utility costs, nearly a month’s worth of housing or a month of childcare, and that’s just in New Haven.”

Yale spokeswoman Karen Peart said in a statement Thursday that the university does not comment on pending litigation.

Employee wellness programs aren’t uncommon—in fact, it’s become an $8 billion industry in the United States. Some wellness programs use incentives like lower premium prices and other kinds of discounts to entice employees to participate. Others may also add a fine or fee for non-participating employees.

Smith, who is working on the case with local attorneys at Garrison, Levin-Epstein, Fitzgerald and Pirrotti, P.C., said that puts pressure on people to submit to medical requirements set by their employers.

“Typically, people would decide to get a mammogram, for instance, or a colonoscopy based on a doctor’s recommendation, and in consultation with their doctor about when and how and whether they’re going to do that, and so this really puts that into the workplace, and that’s the problem,” she said.

The class action lawsuit states that the plaintiffs are seeking a trial by jury in order to get Yale to remove any “opt-out” fees or fines, reinstate stronger protections for employee’s private health data and recover money for those who have been impacted by the fees.

Share this Post

yale garrison

You deserve justice. We are here to fight for you.

Let Us Review Your Case

We will respond to your message promptly. Although we will keep your message strictly confidential, please note that contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Client Experiences

During a very difficult employment situation, I was referred to Joe Garrison. Recognizing the volatile and time sensitive nature of my employment situation, Mr. Garrison met with me immediately (on the weekend no less). He listened to the details of my case, was able to think through possible creative solutions to offer the employer, and was responsive to my myriad of questions. He understood my concerns about litigation versus settlement, and he worked to find the best resolution possible. I am grateful to have had his support at a very difficult time. —J.C., New Haven, CT

Ethan Levin-Epstein represented me during a most painful and challenging crisis in my personal and professional life. Seeing me within 24 hours of being referred, his support and advocacy, wisdom and clarity not only resulted in a favorable negotiated outcome for me and for my family, but gave me peace of mind and the courage to recover. I am very grateful to have met Ethan and his team and would refer anyone in need to this haven. — C.L., Guilford, CT

You will never meet a more knowledgeable and compassionate professional than Steve Fitzgerald. My employment situation was very complex, and Attorney Fitzgerald kept me focused while remaining extremely adept and “thinking on his feet.” Should the need present itself again, I would never seek anyone else’s counsel regarding employment issues. I cannot recommend him highly enough. — J.R., New Haven, CT

Nina Pirrotti provided outstanding legal advice and was trustworthy, dependable, and responsive. From the start, I was confident that her knowledge and experience would obtain favorable results. On a more personal note, I enjoyed working with her and her staff and felt I was included in every part of the process. The dedication, concern, and interest in me as a client was greatly appreciated, and Nina has earned my highest recommendation. — J.H., Monroe, CT

I recently found myself in need of a lawyer in handling a dispute with my former employer. I was fortunate to retain Josh Goodbaum as my legal counsel. His legal skills knowledge and professionalism shone through in every step of the process resulting in a very positive result. I highly recommend Josh if you find yourself in need of legal counsel. — S.R., Guilford, CT

When I go to a lawyer for advice, I am usually anxious, particularly the first meeting. Amanda DeMatteis was clear in describing my options and immediately set me at ease. Realistic assessment is important, and Amanda was clear as to how to set up the case and the direction she felt we should go. I had total confidence in her abilities and knew I was being well represented against a large corporation. More importantly, we were successful! —N.M., Haddam, CT

Proven Results & Personalized Attention When You Need It Most

American Law Institute Super Lawyers American College of Trial Lawyers Best Lawyers The College of Labor and Employment Lawyers
Back to Top