Today’s post comes from guest author Thomas Domer, from The Domer Law Firm in Milwaukee. Although the firm has featured a related blog post before, I think it is worthwhile to re-examine this subject. As has been mentioned below, there are a number of potential issues that could arise from such tests. In addition to the monetary fine for those who did not participate in the screenings, the workplace can seem less welcoming, regardless of whether person’s challenge is physically obvious. Take high cholesterol that has a genetic basis, for example. If a worker gets a fairly regular physical (annual or otherwise) through the preventative side of their health insurance benefits, that employee is probably already being treated for this issue and also probably doesn’t need the added bother of a company or contract nurse calling to espouse the benefits of decreasing that number, as these are concerns between workers and their doctors. Because for this particular issue, it is very possible that genes can trump what is considered the “healthier lifestyle” referred to below, even if that person appears to be more physically fit than other co-workers. In addition, it might be argued that genetic predisposition could be blamed when an occupational exposure is the cause, as Mr. Domer alludes to below. So even with money or benefits on the line, though losing $4,000 is definitely significant, it might be worthwhile for an employee to reconsider whether participating in a company’s wellness testing is really worth it in the long run.
As a worker’s compensation lawyer, I see many news stories through the prism of how the news event or trend will affect injured workers in the worker’s compensation system. A federal judge in Minnesota has ruled that Honeywell, Inc. can begin penalizing workers who refuse to take medical or biometric tests.
The EEOC had claimed Honeywell’s policy violated the Americans With Disabilities Act and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act. They filed a lawsuit in Minneapolis on behalf of two Minnesota employees of Honeywell.
The tests Honeywell required their employees to take measured blood pressure, cholesterol, and glucose, as well as signs that employee had been smoking. Employees who declined to take the test could be fined up to $4,000 in surcharges and increased health costs. Honeywell said the program is designed to “encourage employees to live healthier lifestyles and to lower health care costs.” Honeywell says the testing promotes employee well-being. Management also indicated “We don’t believe it’s fair to the employees who do work to lead healthier lifestyles to subsidize the healthcare premiums for those who do not.”
The ramifications of such testing for worker’s compensation immediately come to mind. In any kind of an occupational exposure claim, such tests could be used to help deny worker’s compensation claims for employees who smoke, are overweight, have diabetic condition, claims involving occupational back conditions, carpal tunnel claims, and any kind of respiratory complaints. Another “slippery slope” may be the use of these kinds of testing to actually screen prospective employees, since the employer rationale would be that hiring folks with those pre-existing conditions would cost the employer more money.