A former Safelite employee has sued the company for allegedly illegally adding an extra charge to her health insurance because of her tobacco use.
Kelly Key of Mobile County, Alabama, filed her suit against the Safelite Group and the company’s benefits administrator on March 19. Key proposed class certification for all others affected by Safelite’s alleged “tobacco surcharge.”
She claims Safelite added a “discriminatory and punitive health insurance surcharge” to her insurance cost. The complaint says adding an extra insurance fee to encourage employees to quit smoking is a common practice, but it has to be compliant with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974. Key alleges Safelite’s surcharges are not compliant.
Former Safelite employee Kelly Key alleges the company illegally charged her, and other employees that smoke, a “tobacco surcharge” with their health insurance.
“Programs must be ‘reasonably designed’ to promote health and cannot be “a subterfuge for discriminating based on a health factor,’” the legal complaint says. “This determination is based on all the relevant facts and circumstances.”
According to the complaint, company wellness programs must be able to give “at least one chance annually to qualify for the reward.” A program must also provide a “reasonable” alternative standard so “the full reward … must be available to all similarly situated individuals.” Employers would also have to inform employees that a reasonable alternative standard is available. Neither penalties nor rewards for following the program can be more than 50% of “the cost of employee-only coverage.”
Key alleges that Safelite doesn’t offer a reasonable alternative to the surcharge for smokers employed at the company.
“There is no smoking cessation program, waiver, or alternative route for tobacco users to obtain the ‘full reward’ (i.e., avoiding the surcharge),” the complaint says. “The only avenue for smokers to avoid the surcharge is to quit smoking and inform the benefits department of that change in status.”
The plaintiff claims that Safelite discriminates against smokers who work there, violating ERISA’s “nondiscrimination provisions.” The complaint argues that Safelite should have instead created a no-cost “smoking cessation program” where, employees wouldn’t be forced to pay a surcharge for the whole plan year whether they quit smoking or not.
“Allowing companies like Safelite to exploit its employees and unlawfully extract millions from them under the guise of a wellness program that is, in reality, a cash grab, directly contradicts ERISA’s purpose of protecting workers from health-based discrimination,” the complaint says.
To compensate for this alleged discrimination, Key petitions the judge for relief, including a declaration that Safelite’s alleged actions violated ERISA and “restitution of all surcharge amounts [Safelite] collected.” Key also asked the judge to certify the proposed class.
The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio as that is where Safelite is headquartered. A trial date has not yet been set.
Safelite charged not only the employee but anyone spouse and dependents on the insurance for this, we were charged $10.00 each for my husband and myself as we both use tobacco and never were we offered any incentive to quit smoking or using tobacco products. i questioned my husband and no one could give a direct answer to why this charge was implemented.