Advertisement
How Big Can the Carrot Be? The EEOC’s New Proposed Rules Regarding Permissible Level of Incentives in Health-Contingent Workplace Wellness Programs Wednesday, January 20, 2021
Many employers have established wellness programs to promote employee health and, in doing so, help counter the ever increasing costs associated with employer-sponsored health benefit plans. Often employers want to establish programs that provide employees with incentives to achieve certain health outcomes, such as smoking cessation or weight loss. Employers must exercise caution in creating such health-contingent wellness programs, which necessarily require employees to disclose health information, because the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (“GINA”) prohibit medical inquiries unless there is a demonstrated business necessity or responding to the health inquiry is voluntary.
Ethan Isaac and Bonnie Puckett reflect on episodes and developments from 2020, including mobile applications relating to COVID-19, remote working, and global mobility.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
A federal court in Maryland recently found that Baltimore City’s Enoch Pratt Free Library, the City’s public library system, violated federal pay equity law and is thus liable for more than $190,000 in backpay and liquidated damages. In
United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Enoch Pratt Free Library, et al., the court concluded that the Library and two related defendants violated the Equal Pay Act (EPA) when it paid five female librarians less than a male librarian. The court’s December 23 decision found that the female librarians performed the same core duties as their male colleague, and rejected the defendants’ arguments that the library branches where the female librarians worked accounted for differences in duties sufficient to warrant paying the female employees less. The court further found that the Library failed to follow internal Human Resources guidance instructing city agencies to av
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
On December 16, 2020, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued guidance for employers regarding mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations and potential implications under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Title VII) and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA).
Requiring COVID-19 Vaccinations
Subject to certain restrictions and potential accommodation requests, the EEOC’s position is that employers may require employees to be vaccinated before returning to the workplace. The EEOC has clarified that the administration of a COVID-19 vaccine does not seek information about an individual’s impairments or current health status and thus does not constitute a “medical examination” under the ADA.
Wednesday, December 23, 2020
On December 16, 2020, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued guidance for employers regarding mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations and potential implications under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Title VII) and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA).
Requiring COVID-19 Vaccinations
Subject to certain restrictions and potential accommodation requests, the EEOC’s position is that employers may require employees to be vaccinated before returning to the workplace. The EEOC has clarified that the administration of a COVID-19 vaccine does not seek information about an individual’s impairments or current health status and thus does not constitute a “medical examination” under the ADA.