Skip to main content

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Flambeau, Inc.

W.D. Wis.December 30, 2015No. 14-cv-638-bbcCited 2 times
Defendant WinFlambeau, Inc.
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Crabb
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
summary judgment

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Failure to Accommodate

Outcome

The court granted summary judgment in favor of Flambeau, Inc., holding that the employer's wellness program requirement—conditioning health insurance enrollment on completion of health risk assessments and biometric screening tests—fell within the ADA's safe harbor for insurance benefit plans and did not violate the prohibition on employer-mandated medical examinations under 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4)(A).

What This Ruling Means

Flambeau, Inc. Court Ruling Summary

What Happened

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued Flambeau, Inc., claiming the company violated disability laws by requiring employees to complete health risk assessments and biometric screening tests to enroll in health insurance. The EEOC argued this requirement unfairly targeted workers with disabilities.

What the Court Decided

The court sided with Flambeau. The judge ruled that the company's wellness program fell within an exception allowed under disability law. The court found the health screening requirement was permitted as part of managing the company's insurance benefits plan, not an unlawful medical examination.

Why This Matters for Workers

This ruling gives employers more flexibility to require health screenings as a condition of insurance enrollment. However, it's important to note this was a narrow decision about what qualifies as an acceptable insurance practice. Workers with disabilities should still be aware of their rights—employers must make reasonable accommodations for those with disabilities, even with wellness programs in place. If you believe a health requirement unfairly targets you, consulting with an employment attorney about your specific situation may be helpful.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.