AARP v. United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

267 F. Supp. 3d 14 (2017)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

AARP v. United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

United States District Court for the District of Columbia
267 F. Supp. 3d 14 (2017)

Facts

Employer-sponsored health-insurance plans implemented employee wellness programs and offered incentives for employee participation. Under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), a health plan could implement a penalty or incentive of up to 30 percent of the plan’s coverage costs based on an employee’s nonparticipation or participation in a wellness program, which involved collecting sensitive medical information like disability status and genetic background. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibited employers from inquiring about employees’ disability statuses or requiring employees to undergo medical examinations. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) prohibited employers from requesting or requiring the disclosure of employees’ genetic information or backgrounds. However, both statutes provided an exception for employee wellness programs to seek protected information if employee participation in such programs was voluntary. Neither statute defined the terms that made a program voluntary. The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (defendant) was empowered to issue ADA and GINA implementation regulations, including those concerning employee wellness programs. The EEOC’s initial regulations stated that a wellness program was not voluntary if employees had to disclose protected information to receive health-plan incentives. However, the EEOC eventually issued new regulations stating that an incentivized wellness program was considered voluntary if the conditional penalty or incentive was under 30 percent of the plan’s coverage cost. Some comment letters received by the EEOC encouraged the proposed rule, but most were against the rule. The nonprofit organization AARP (plaintiff) filed an Administrative Procedure Act (APA) challenge to the EEOC’s new regulations, claiming that the 30 percent wellness-program penalties and incentives violated the voluntary-participation requirements of the ADA and GINA. The AARP argued that employees who could not afford the 30 percent cost difference would be effectively forced to disclose protected information. Both parties moved for summary judgment.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Bates, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 733,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 733,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 733,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership