allowing the action to proceed to discovery. The court in Diment, et al. v. Quad/Graphics, Inc., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103895 (N.D. Ill. June 11, 2024), assessed the legality of an employer’s wellness program under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The plaintiffs, a group of employees, filed a class action alleging that the defendants’ employee-sponsored medical plan violated the ADA. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), which the court denied. The plaintiffs participated in the defendants’ medical plan, offering employees the choice to participate in an optional “Wellness Program,” which included a discount on premiums for employees who chose to complete the biometric screening and test within certain standards across criteria. These standards included blood sugar, blood pressure, LDL Cholesterol, Triglycerides/HDL, and BMI. Id. at *2. The defendants offered a grace period in which employees initially paid insurance premiums at the level offered to employees who complete a biometric screening and satisfy all criteria, in order to allow sufficient time to opt-in to the wellness program if an employee chose to do so. The plaintiffs chose not to participate in the biometric screening, and therefore their medical-plan premium payments were adjusted to the baseline premiums for their plans, without any incentive discounts under the wellness program. Id. at *3. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants’ program violated the ADA’s rule prohibiting employer-based “medical examination[s]” and “inquiries.” Id. The court determined that it was undisputed by the parties that the biometric screening was a “medical examination.” The dispute between the parties focused on whether the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that the medical examinations were voluntary. Id. at *4. The plaintiffs argued that the monthly charges imposed due to the failure to complete the medical examinations were significant penalties, and thus, coercive to cause employees to complete the medical examinations. Id. at *4-5. The defendants argued the charges were not coercive because they were the original cost of the medical insurance, and those who choose to undergo the medical examinations received a premium discount. Thus, the defendants contended that employees had the choice to decide whether to complete the medical examination and receive a discount or to not have an examination and pay the regular rate of the premium. The court found that the factual question of whether the Wellness Program was voluntary was not ripe to decide in a 12(b)(6) motion, and that the plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that the program was not voluntary. Accordingly, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Finally, in Wilmuth, et al. v. Amazon.com Inc., 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 225268 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 12, 2024), the plaintiffs, a group of former employees, filed a class action alleging that the defendant systematically underpaid and discriminated against its female employees in violation of the Equal Pay Act (EPA) and the Washington Equal Pay and Opportunities Act (EPOA). The plaintiffs also alleged they were subjected to retaliation and medical leave discrimination. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant’s compensation practices were discriminatory and based on a centralized, uniform set of policies that applied across the company. The plaintiffs argued that the defendant’s use of rigid "job levels" and "job codes" led to women being paid less than men for equivalent positions, even when they were more qualified. Id. at *4-5. Additionally, the plaintiffs claimed that the defendant retaliated against them individually for raising concerns about pay disparities and taking medical leave. Plaintiff Wilmuth also asserted that after taking FMLA leave in Spring 2023, the defendant shared private information about her leave and discrimination complaints with her co-workers, which she contended damaged her reputation. Later, while on short-term disability leave, Wilmuth alleged that she was terminated from her position. The other plaintiffs alleged that they were subjected to retaliation in the form of negative performance evaluations and demotions after raising their concerns about discrimination. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims, arguing that the proposed class for the equal pay claims was too broad and unmanageable, and that Wilmuth failed to state a valid claim for medical leave violations. The defendant also sought to strike the class allegations. The court denied the defendant’s motions. The court ruled that the class action claims should not be dismissed at this stage, as the plaintiffs had provided enough detail to warrant further discovery. The court also ruled that Wilmuth’s claims for interference and retaliation were sufficiently plausible to move forward. The court determined that the defendant’s arguments were premature and unsupported by the current record. Accordingly, the court denied the defendant’s motions and allowed the claims to proceed to discovery. 6. Rulings On Motions For Summary Judgment After exchanging documents, deposing witnesses, and fleshing out the material facts of the dispute, defendants commonly seek to dispose of litigation by moving for summary judgment. Under a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment, the argument to the court is relatively straightforward, i.e ., that no reasonable juror could find in the
15
© Duane Morris LLP 2025
Duane Morris Discrimination Class Action Review – 2025
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online