Read more: Anthem, Cigna and Macy’s Sued Over Wellness Plan
Bates’s decision granted the AARP’s motion for summary judgment against the EEOC rule. But Bates declined to vacate the rule entirely out of concern for “significant disruptive consequences.”
If the rule were vacated, Bates said, employees who’ve already received wellness program incentives “would presumably be obligated to pay these back,” while employers who effectively imposed a penalty on nonparticipating employees “would likewise be obligated to repay to employees the cost of the penalty.”
Protected health care information that was already disclosed to companies “cannot be made confidential again,” Bates said.
“It is far from clear that it would be possible to restore the status quo ante if the rules were vacated; rather, it may well end up punishing those firms—and employees—who acted in reliance on the rules,” Bates wrote.
This report was updated with comment about the ruling.