U.S. District Court Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman has denied a motion to dismiss a proposed class action in which marketing firm workers claim that the company’s wellness program violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Despite the company’s stance that a medical exam for workers was voluntary, the judge found that workers provided sufficient evidence to the contrary that justified the suit moving forward. The case is Diment v. Quad/Graphics Inc. et al., case number 1:23-cv-01173, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
Current and former participants in Quad/Graphics Inc.’s medical plan sued the marketing company and its subsidiary, Rise Interactive Media & Analytics LLC, after establishing a wellness program for workers to submit to a biometric screening. Workers who declined to participate in the biometric screening faced increased health insurance premiums. The ADA prohibits mandatory screening exams unless they are job-related or voluntary.
Quad argued that the screening is voluntary, which complies with the ADA. They claimed that the increase in insurance premiums for employees refusing to take the screening are merely the original costs of the premiums. Employees who chose to take the screening received a discount on their premiums. As a result, Quad maintained that it incentivized workers to complete the screening rather than penalizing those who chose not to do so.
However, the current and former plan participants saw an increase in their insurance premiums of about $1,800 per year for refusal to participate in the screening. They characterized the charges as a penalty that coerced employees into completing the medical exam.
Judge Coleman noted that the ADA does not define “voluntary” in this context. However, the judge pointed to precedent in the Illinois Northern District that addressed a similar issue. In Williams v. City of Chicago, the city of Chicago instituted a free wellness plan for employees. However, in any month employees chose not to participate, the city deducted $50 from their paychecks. In that case, the judge found that the employees provided sufficient evidence that the wellness program was not voluntary. Judge Coleman also found that reasoning applicable to this case.
HBL has experience in all areas of benefits and employment law, offering a comprehensive solution to all your business benefits and HR/employment needs. We help ensure you are in compliance with the complex requirements of ERISA and the IRS code, as well as those laws that impact you and your employees. Together, we reduce your exposure to potential legal or financial penalties. Learn more by calling 470-571-1007.
Hall Benefits Law, LLC
Latest posts by Hall Benefits Law, LLC (see all)
- Colorado First State to Place Price Cap on Prescription Drug - November 27, 2025
