SimplyHR | Employment & Labor Blog 

Following new rules issued on employer wellness programs, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on June 16 released an example of how employers should communicate with their employees about the medical information those programs obtain.

In May, the EEOC issued final rules clarifying that Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) allow employers to use incentives to encourage participation in wellness programs that include disability-related inquiries and/or medical examinations as long as the programs are voluntary and the incentives do not exceed certain limits. Now, the EEOC has provided an example of how employers that offer these wellness programs may notify their employees about the specifics.

On May 16, 2016 the EEOC issued final rules amending the regulations and interpretive guidance implementing Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) with respect to employer wellness programs. These changes clarify that employers may use incentives to encourage participation in wellness programs that include disability-related inquiries and/or medical examinations as long as the programs are voluntary and the incentives do not exceed certain limits. Additionally, the rules confirm that employers may provide incentives when employees’ spouses—but not children—provide certain health information.

On February 10, 2014 the Department of the Treasury issued final regulations under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) that delay enforcement of the shared responsibility penalties for mid-size employers until 2016. Mid-size employers are employers with 50-99 full-time employees in the preceding calendar year. Full-time employees consist of employees who work 30 or more hours per week. Previously, in 2013, the Treasury Department delayed enforcement of the penalties for all employers from January 1, 2014 until January 1, 2015.

On December 16, 2013, the United States Supreme Court held that an employer sponsored disability plan with a provision requiring a plan participant to file suit within three (3) years after filing a written proof of loss under the plan is enforceable under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The decision by the Court in Heimeshoff v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., No. 12-729, resolved a deep split among the federal Courts of Appeals regarding the enforceability of such limitation provisions.

This summer, the United States Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Windsor that the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), the law that defined “marriage” as a union between one man and one woman for purposes of federal law, was unconstitutional. The effect of the ruling is that married same-sex couples would become eligible for certain federal spousal benefits that were denied to them under DOMA. In the wake of Windsor, employers have been awaiting guidance from federal agencies as to what DOMA’s downfall means for administering employee benefit plans. We had previously written a blog post about this uncertainty; however, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) recently issued the awaited guidance to help employers comply with Windsor’s ruling.

If you’re reading this blog, then it’s probably safe to assume that you heard about the Supreme Court’s decision that the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) is unconstitutional. And it’s probably also safe to assume that you’ve had friends and acquaintances weighing in with their thoughts on the decision on Facebook, LinkedIn and in other venues. Getting lost in the debate, however, is the impact this decision has on how employee benefits are administered.