Frank C. Morris, Jr., a Member of the Firm in the Litigation and Employee Benefits practices, in the firm’s Washington, DC, office, was quoted in “3 Questions About EEOC Rules and Wellness Programs,” by Ben James. (Read the full version — subscription required.)
Following is an excerpt:
The rule's language should be tweaked to account for dependent or tiered coverage, because as its stands, it apparently blocks employers from offering incentives for participation to workers' dependents or other family members, according to Epstein Becker Green member Frank Morris.
“The EEOC's position makes no sense,” he said.
Whether the “employee-only” stricture is an oversight or a calculated limitation is tough to say, he added. …
Morris said he didn't see the EEOC's view as compelling, but he still advised employers to take a belt-and-suspenders approach, following the requirements for voluntary wellness programs while still keeping the insurance safe harbor argument available.
“It's not at all clear that other courts wouldn't follow the Eleventh Circuit's decision in Seff and not follow the EEOC's view,” he said.
