Delaware Employment Law Blog

Is the workplace the right place to fight the battle of the bulge?  With wellness programs on the rise, obesity among employees has been one of the most targeted health issues.

There seems to be a new study every week about the types of wellness initiatives that are being used, the effectiveness of the different initiatives, and the high cost of wellness programs.  And each study seems to generate different data. 

Despite the conflicting data, one common thread among many programs is the attempt to target obesity as a health risk.  A study by the Strategies to Overcome and Prevent Obesity (STOP) Alliance reports that 80 percent of employees, regardless of weight, believe that weight-management programs belong in the workplace.  71 percent reported that weight-management issues are appropriately addressed in the workplace. 

A recent article in BusinessWeek entitled "Hide the Doritos! Here comes HR" identified some well-known organizations that have declared war on calorie over-consumption.  According to the piece, companies such as Google, Yamaha, and Caterpillar have taken a first step by removing the junk food from all company kitchens and vending machines. 

[Source:  Human Resource Executive Online]

Other Posts about Employees' Off-Duty Conduct

Employees, Prepare to Get Healthy, Like It Or Not!

DelaWELL Wellness Programs Wins Award

DOL Offers Compliance Checklist for Wellness Programs

Are Wellness Programs on the Decline?

A Whirlpool of Excitement about Rights of Employees Who Smoke

Employees Who Smoke (Part 1) Smoking Breaks

Employees Who Smoke (Part 2) Charging Smokers Higher Health Care Premiums

Employees Who Smoke (Part 3) Employee Incentive Programs Targeted to Smokers

Delaware Employers & Employees Who Smoke (Part 4)

Employer Quits Its Smoking Policy

Not Everyone Is Fired Up About Smoking Ban

From Cancer Sticks to Drumsticks: How far should employers go when it comes to employees' health?

Workplace discrimination based on smoking habits and tobacco use has garnered national attention as a wide-spread employment practice.  Weyco, Inc. was the first large employer to make the news for its tough stance against smoking when it fired several employees after they failed to quit smoking.  Its actions have been at the center of the debate of an employer's right to control the on- and off-duty conduct of its employees.  (See the list of prior posts on this topic, below). 

Now, PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, an organization perhaps best known for throwing blood on people wearing furs, has called on Weyco to take its policy to the next level. PETA has written to Weyco President Howard Weyers urging him to hire only vegetarians.

In its letter, PETA points out that the consumption of meat and other animal products has been conclusively linked to heart disease, diabetes, several types of cancer, and obesity. PETA also recommends that the company provide employees with free vegetarian lunches--a program that PETA is offering to help implement--to improve the health of the company's current employees.

"When you take into consideration all the diseases that have been linked to meat consumption, it adds up to a mountain of health care costs," says PETA's Ashley Byrne. "Discouraging smoking is a great idea, but if Weyco really wants to get serious about cutting costs, it'll urge its employees to ditch drumsticks as well as cancer sticks."

Other Posts on Smoking in the Workplace:

A Whirlpool of Excitement about Rights of Employees Who Smoke

Delaware Employers & Smoking Employees (Part 1) Smoking Breaks

Delaware Employers & Smoking Employees (Part 2) Charging Smokers Higher Health Care Premiums

Delaware Employers & Employees Who Smoke (Part 3) Employee Incentive Programs Targeted to Smokers

Delaware Employers & Employees Who Smoke (Part 4)

Employer Quits Its Smoking Policy

Not Everyone Is Fired Up About Smoking Ban

Employers who ban smoking in the workplace are commonplace today.  Weyco's ban on employee smoking was the first of many headlines.  In 2006, Scotts Lawn Care's termination of an employee who tested positive for nicotine landed the company not only in the news but also in court when the employee filed suit.  Despite the increasing number of employers adopting anti-smoking policies, they're not so popular with everyone.

The UAW in particular, is not the biggest fan of smoking bans for its union members.  Effective the first day of June, Caterpillar banned smoking at all of its US facilities.  The United Autoworkers filed a complaint with the NLRB alleging that workers' right to smoke is subject to mandatory bargaining, subject to the sixty-year old bargaining agreement. 

Workplace Prof Blog asks the question that hasn't yet been answered in the world of labor relations:  Does the "right to smoke" at work affect the terms and conditions of employment so that it should be considered a mandatory subject of collective bargaining.

Employees who smoke are currently unpopular with the nation's employers.  But they are not alone.  The Philadelphia e-zine, Philly Burbs, writes that there are five other "conditions" that employers will avoid in a potential job candidate.  You can decide for yourself whether there is any truth in this claim.

The article quotes the president of an L.A.-based wellness company who says that there are five medical conditions in particular that no employer wants to see. The five he cites include: obesity, depression, hypertension, high cholesterol and musculoskeletal disorders such as low back pain.

Wow! 

The article goes on to say:

“Obesity is quickly replacing smoking as the number one expensive liability for a potential employer,” says Thomas B. Gilliam, president, Industrial Physical Capability Services (IPCS), Inc., Hudson, Ohio. He says that IPCS research indicates that costs related to obese employees have grown from 29 percent of the new hire pool in 2001 to 39 percent in 2007. “The obese worker will cost a company about $2,000 more per year in added health care claims and another $500 per year in lost productivity.”

I've posted before about the [very real] possibility that employers will soon target obese employees as the workplace becomes ever more focused on "wellness."  A combination of factors makes this result likely.

Primarily, he number of smokers will continue to decline.  Smokers receive harsh treatment and ostracism from society in large and, certainly, from mainstream corporate America.  In addition to the social pressures to abandon tobacco use, the country's employers have proclaimed smoking as an enemy to business--both from a productivity and expense perspective. 

For nearly 10 years, employers increasingly have used employees' tobacco use as a hiring qualification ("We don't hire smokers") and as a basis for higher health insurance premiums.  But eliminating smokers from the workplace will not create the ideal productive environment nor will it prevent the cost of health insurance from continuing to increase.  So what, then?  It seems logical that, once the "problem" (smoking) is eliminated, but the effects of the problem remain (productivity and high insurance costs), employers will simply elect a new "problem" to target. 

Obesity as a "problem" is not a far-flung idea.  Already we have seen fast-food chains change their offering to include healthier options, such as salads and fruit.  Even the addition of wellness programs promotes the idea of weight loss and a healthy body size.

Further support of this argument can be seen in the recent announcement of American Airlines that it will charge passengers $15 for the 1st checked bag and additional, higher premiums for the 2nd, and 3d bags.  The airline has defended this tremendously unpopular idea by citing the high cost of fuel.  Luggage weighs more.  The heavier the plane, the more fuel that is required to operate it.  Does it seem like a natural extension of this proposition that passengers will be charged extra if they "bring" extra weight on board, thereby causing the plane to use more fuel?

Of course, you may think this is absurd.  And, I admit, so did I.  But as outrageous as the thought may be, the local news today featured an "expert" on the airline industry who said, affirmatively and convincingly, that he believed that the next step would be to charge travelers for "extra weight" the next time they fly the friendly skies. 

Again, wow.

Off-duty conduct, especially smoking and tobacco use, are often regulated by employers who complain of increasing health-care costs. But not every employer believes that workplace regulations on employee's off-duty conduct is an appropriate solution.

The Tribune Company, which owns the Chicago Tribune, came under new ownership in December. Sam Zell, the new chairman and chief executive, recently revoked the company’s $100-per-month smoker’s penalty. The penalty, says the new owner, “is inconsistent with the new culture.”

The CAO and Executive VP, Gerry Spector, told employees in an e-mail, “We’d rather you use your own judgment when it comes to tobacco use, not impose ours upon you.”

The company will continue to offer smoking-cessation programs to employees at no cost but will reimburse those employees who had been subject to the penalty.

This certainly a different approach to the way most employers are treating smokers these days. Is this an indication that employers may move towards positive reinforcement instead of penalties to reduce the cost of health insurance?

The relationship between smoking and employability is a familiar topic on this blog. To visit some of our previous posts on the issue, click here.

More on the story can be found at the Chicago Tribune's website.

[Not] Hiring & Firing Smokers

Of the four posts in this series on Smokers & the Workplace, the common action we have seen Delaware employers take is simply not hiring applicants who smoke. Many who implement this type of policy permit current employees to be grandfathered into the new program and do not require them to quit smoking as a condition of continued employment. But that, also, is a viable alternative.

Weyco Inc. stopped hiring smokers in 2003 and prohibited smoking anywhere on company property in 2004. Then, citing evidence on how smokers drive up its health-care insurance costs, Weyco informed its 200 employees that smokers would have fifteen months, until January 1, 2005, to quit smoking. If they didn't (or couldn't), they would lose their jobs. Four employees left rather than be tested for the presence of nicotine in their system.

Since Delaware, like Michigan, is one of the states without a "smokers' rights" law, an applicant who is not hired or an employee who is terminated for smoking would have to look to other statutes for protection. The most likely law would be the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").

While no Delaware court has addressed the issue, smokers have had little success in other jurisdictions using the ADA to attack their termination. Under the ADA, an employee must show that they have an impairment that substantially limits a "major life activity" like walking, talking, speaking, breathing, etc. While a smoker who develops cancer or mphysema or heart disease from smoking might be protected under the ADA because of the symptoms of those diseases, it is unlikely that smoking alone will be sufficient to invoke ADA protection. As a result, a Michigan state court ruled that an employee's "addiction to nicotine" was not a disability because it did not substantially limit any major life activity.

Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a case involving smokers who were rejected from jobs because they had used tobacco within the last year. That refusal let stand a Florida state court ruling that the rejections were lawful because they were based on evidence concerning worker productivity, absenteeism, and public health objectives.

Conclusion
It is unlikely that this hot issue will be tamped out. It pits the right of individuals to engage in a lawful activity off the job against an employer's right to hire who it wants. In the absence of a smokers' rights bill in Delaware, it seems that the employer's rights will prevail in most instances.

Other Posts on Smoking in the Workplace:

A Whirlpool of Excitement about Rights of Employees Who Smoke

Delaware Employers & Smoking Employees (Part 1) Smoking Breaks

Delaware Employers & Smoking Employees (Part 2) Charging Smokers Higher Health Care Premiums

Delaware Employers & Employees Who Smoke (Part 3) Employee Incentive Programs Targeted to Smokers

Are Today's Wellness Programs Running Out of Steam?

DOL Offers Compliance Checklist for Wellness Programs, which discusses the Wellness Program Analysis.

Employee Incentive Programs Targeted to Smokers

In Part 2 of this series of posts, we talked about employers who charge higher health care premiums to employees who smoke. These types of programs are commonly lumped together under the broader term of "Wellness Programs."

But, in fairness, a true Wellness Program involves more than a financial penalty. The modern workforce expects more rewards than punishments from a wellness program. And most employers have answered that call to action by using positive reinforcement strategies--either alone or in conjunction with higher premiums.

Employers may offer special discounts, rebates, and incentives in return for employees' adherence to certain wellness initiatives, such as smoking cessation. In order to offer these benefits to non-smokers, employers must comply with additional HIPAA regulations. The incentive program must be reasonably structured to promote health; the rewards must be proportionate to the employer's gain; and the incentives must be strictly based on the employees' compliance with the program.

Other Posts on Smoking in the Workplace:

A Whirlpool of Excitement about Rights of Employees Who Smoke

Delaware Employers & Smoking Employees (Part 1) Smoking Breaks

Delaware Employers & Smoking Employees (Part 2) Charging Smokers Higher Health Care Premiums

Are Today's Wellness Programs Running Out of Steam?

DOL Offers Compliance Checklist for Wellness Programs, which discusses the Wellness Program Analysis.

Charging Smokers Higher Health Care Premiums.

It seems settled that smoking poses a substantial health threat to those who smoke. The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lists smoking as the leading cause of preventable death in the country, resulting in 400,000 deaths a year. The risk of dying from lung cancer is more than 22 times higher among men who smoke and about 12 times higher among women who smoke compared with nonsmokers. Cigarette smokers are 2–4 times more likely to develop coronary heart disease than nonsmoker.

Of course, smokers' health problems show up in medical expenses. Men who smoke incur $15,800 and women who smoke incur $17,500 in additional lifetime medical expenses. These additional costs inevitably affect an employer's health care costs. As a result, employers across the country are now attempting to shift some of these additional costs back to smokers. Some are charging smokers a higher co-pay for their health insurance benefits. Is this practice legal in Delaware? The answer is probably yes.

Currently, approximately thirty states, including New Jersey, have implemented some form of "lifestyle discrimination" statutes. These statutes make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of legal activities. More specifically, some states have "Smoker's Rights" statutes which prohibit employers from discriminating against smokers in the workforce. Under these statutes, employers may not terminate employees because they are smokers or refuse to hire applicants who smoke. Some of these laws do permit employers, however, to charge higher health care premiums to employees who smoke. Delaware does not have any such law.

While no Delaware law prohibits employers from charging smokers higher health insurance premiums, HIPAA regulations should be consulted before beginning to impose such a surcharge. HIPAA prohibits employers who offer health insurance from charging an employee a higher premium than required of a similarly situated employee, on the basis of any health-related factor unless that surcharge is based on participation in a "bona fide wellness program."

Wellness programs vary widely, and the features of such programs will determine whether they are subject to the HIPPA regulations. In order to lawfully implement a wellness program, employers should ensure that the reward is limited to a specified percentage (e.g. 10-20% of the cost of contributions for the employee's health care); the program is available to all similarly situated individuals and offers written notice of an alternative for employees with physical limitations to meeting the program's standards (e.g., by attending a smoking cessation program).

Consider the following example. An employer circulates a form to all employees to sign, which would certify that they have not used tobacco products in the past twelve months. Individuals who do not complete the form are assessed a surcharge equal to 20% of the total cost of the employee's coverage. Employees who are unable to meet the standard due to a medical condition (addiction to nicotine) are not assessed the surcharge so long as they participate in a smoking cessation program. This is an example of a bona fide wellness program that satisfies HIPPA's non-discrimination regulations.

The Department of Labor has a helpful online checklist employers can use to determine whether their wellness program is HIPPA-compliant. The link is below.

Other Posts on Smoking in the Workplace:

A Whirlpool of Excitement about Rights of Employees Who Smoke

Delaware Employers & Smoking Employees (Part 1) Smoking Breaks

Are Today's Wellness Programs Running Out of Steam?

DOL Offers Compliance Checklist for Wellness Programs, which discusses the Wellness Program Analysis.

Smoking Breaks

YCST Partner William W. Bowser posted earlier about the controversy over employees who smoke at Whirlpool, where 38 employees have been suspended after caught smoking. We often get questions from Delaware employers about what they can and cannot do to respond to the various effects of employees who smoke.

In this series of posts, we'll address some of the most common questions Delaware businesses have about smokers' rights.

Smoking Breaks

The most often asked question is whether an employer has to facilitate a smoker's habit by giving smoking breaks. The answer is no. There is no state or federal law that requires smoking breaks.

Delaware employers must, however, provide most employees with a meal break of at least 30 consecutive minutes if the employee is scheduled to work seven-and-one-half or more hours per day. Meal breaks must be given sometime after the first two hours of work and before the last two hours of work in a workday. Of course, smokers could use this meal break to smoke.

If an employer chooses to allow its employees to take smoking breaks, it probably has to pay them for the time. According to an opinion letter issued by the Wage and Hour Division of the U.S. Department of Labor, short smoke breaks are to be included in the calculation of an employee's "hours worked." Specifically, smoke breaks of 3-4 minutes at a time, the total of which do not exceed 15 minutes a day, may not be excluded from "hours worked" under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Thus, the ability to smoke during work hours is largely under an employer's control. Smoking breaks aren't required; but, if they are allowed, the employees must be compensated for that time.

Other posts on Smoking in the Workplace:

Whirlpool of Excitement About Employees Who Smoke

Employers who charge higher health premiums to employees who smoker has been a heated issue for several years. The trend first took the national spotlight in 2003 when Weyco, Inc. stopped hiring smokers and gave current employees 1 year to quit [smoking] or be fired.

The issue of charging smokers more for health care has flared up again this week when it was reported that Whirlpool has suspended 38 smokers who claimed they were non-smokers to get a lower health care premium. According to press reports, the workers were seen smoking or chewing tobacco at the company’s smoking huts even though they signed paperwork claiming they did not use tobacco.

Whirlpool charges smokers an additional $500 per year in health premiums. According to a 2007 survey of employer-sponsored health plans by consulting firm Mercer, 16 percent of large employers vary employee premiums based on smoking status. Among small and midsize employers, 5 percent vary premiums.

Whirlpool, like most employers, uses an honor system requesting employees to honestly fill out paperwork regarding their smoking status. It remains to be seen as this case will lead to mandatory nicotine testing as at least one article has suggested.

Our friend, John Phillips at The Word on Employment Law, also has a timely post about this news called, Smoke 'Em If You Got 'Em?

The topic of off-duty conduct has been unavoidable recently.

First there was the wave of large companies who stopped hiring smokers or charged higher health care premiums to employees. Sure enough, this trend resulted in a lawsuit challenging the legality of making employment decisions based on what candidates and employees do outside of work. The conditional-employee sued Scotts when his conditional job offer was revoked when he tested positive for nicotine. (Scotts doesn't hire smokers).

Next came a wave of talk about GINA, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, proposed to prohibit employers from basing employment decisions based on genetic information. It would also put limits on the amount of detail employer about an employee's family medical history and other private data.

And don't forget the internet! Employees who post on blogs, in chat rooms, or on social network sites like MySpace and FaceBook have a lot to stay. What are employers to do when their employees (current or former) are giving away trade secrets or other confidential information? And what about the bitter employee with lots of complaining to do and an unlimited audience ready to listen.

What's next? Well, if you ask Governor Spitzer, he might have his own opinionson this topic. His "off-duty conduct" has resulted in his resignation and a great deal of commentary for morning news shows and late night comics alike. Some may argue that the difference between smoking and engaging prostitutes is legality. Smoking, at least for now, is a legal activity. You can pick up a pack of cigarettes at any corner convenience store. Not so with prostitutes. They can be picked up, true, but it is unlawful to do so. Yet, both activities will land you in a similar position--unemployed.

So where should employers draw the line? That's a question for another day. Some critics claim that weight will be the "new tobacco." Will employers, who face rapidly increasing health care costs, next turn to overweight employees and make them an offer they cannot refuse--lose weight or lose your job. Or will the same objective be attempted through higher health care premiums?

And will they charge by the pound?

Barry M. Willoughby, our Section Chair, commented on this issue last week in the Wilmington News Journal.