691 F.3d 1221
11th Cir.2012Background
- Broward offers a group health insurance plan; Coventry Healthcare sponsored a wellness program for enrollees.
- Wellness program included a biometric screening and an online Health Risk Assessment to identify five disease states.
- Identified employees could join a disease management coaching program, yielding co-pay waivers for certain medications.
- Participation in the wellness program was voluntary for enrollment, but Broward imposed a $20 biweekly charge on non-participants starting April 2010; charges were suspended Jan 1, 2011.
- Seff, a former Broward employee, sued under the ADA, arguing the program violated prohibitions on non-voluntary medical exams and disability-related inquiries.
- The district court granted summary judgment, finding the program fell within the ADA safe harbor for bona fide benefit plans; it did not address possible non-voluntary exam issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the wellness program is a term of a bona fide benefit plan under the ADA safe harbor. | Seff contends Morrison's testimony creates a factual dispute about term status. | Broward relies on the program being part of the group health plan and thus a term of the benefit plan. | Yes, the program is a term of the benefit plan. |
| Whether Morrison's deposition creates a material factual dispute precluding summary judgment. | Morrison's view that the program isn’t a plan term could create fact questions. | Even if read as a factual issue, it doesn't defeat the legal conclusion of safe harbor. | No material factual dispute precluding summary judgment. |
| Whether the ADA safe harbor applies to the wellness program and thus immunizes it from disability-related inquiries. | Non-voluntary screenings and inquiries were not exempted if outside the safe harbor. | The program qualifies as a term of a bona fide benefit plan under the safe harbor. | Yes, the safe harbor applies; summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Motorola, Inc., 303 F.3d 1284 (11th Cir. 2002) (job-related, business-necessity exception guidance for ADA examinations)
- Belanger v. Salvation Army, 556 F.3d 1153 (11th Cir. 2009) (statutory interpretation as a matter of law)
- Birnholz v. 44 Wall St. Fund, Inc., 880 F.2d 335 (11th Cir. 1989) (statutory interpretation and related issues)
- FindWhat Investor Grp. v. FindWhat.com, 658 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2011) (summary judgment standard and evidence evaluation)
- Hayes v. Wilh Wilhelmsen Enters., Ltd., 818 F.2d 1557 (11th Cir. 1987) (evidence and factual dispute considerations in summary judgment)
- Krutzig v. Pulte Home Corp., 602 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir. 2010) (standard for reviewing summary judgment de novo)
- Alvarez v. Royal Atl. Developers, Inc., 610 F.3d 1253 (11th Cir. 2010) (application of ADA standards and related jurisprudence)