Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—E.D. Mich.: Court denies certification of ADA-based challenge to employer wellness program, (Feb 24, 2026)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

The employee alleged that the withholding of insurance credits from employees who choose not to participate in the health screening is a “financial penalty,” rendering the program coercive.

A former employee of White Cap, L.P., is not entitled to certification of putative ADA class claims challenging the legality of the employer’s “Health Screen Program,” which requires employee participants to submit to annual medical exams and biometric testing to receive a “credit” toward the cost of their health insurance, a magistrate judge in a federal district court in Michigan found. The employee argued that he was challenging a “company-wide policy of discrimination,” but his proposed class definition did not meet Rule 23(a)’s commonality requirements. Only some of White Cap’s employees were required to enroll in its Chronic Care Management Program, which in turn allegedly required more sharing of their health data than other employees, and the potentially coercive impact of the program’s annual credit also depended in large part on each employee’s income (Lobdell v. White Cap, LP, No. 24-11450 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 20, 2026)).

Self-funded health plan. White Cap, according to the court, runs a self-funded health benefits plan for its employees. Those who enroll in the insurance plan pay a premium, which is deducted from their bi-weekly paychecks.

Annual physical credit and premium discount. Employees can receive a discount on their premiums, called an Annual Physical Credit, by participating in White Cap’s Health Screen Program. The program requires that participants receive medical exams and biometric testing.

CCMP. If the screening results in a diagnosis of a chronic condition, the employee, and a spouse if also enrolled, must participate in White Cap’s Chronic Condition Management Program (CCMP) to receive the premium credit. The CCMP requires that participants adhere to a treatment plan.

Data sharing. White Cap uses third parties to administer the program. When signing up for the program, employees sign a notice and authorization form that tells them their data will be shared with third parties.

Commercial driver. In 2020, the employee began working as a licensed commercial driver for CSI Geoturf. In 2022, White Cap acquired CSI Geoturf and transitioned him to its insurance plan. As a new employee, the driver automatically received the annual physical credit for the remainder of the first calendar year in which he enrolled in the insurance plan. For the first year of his enrollment, White Cap deducted $68.46 from each of his bi-weekly paychecks to pay for his premium.

Did not participate following year... The company told the employee that the following year, unless he participated in the program by submitting an “Annual Physical Screening Form” by December 31, he would not receive the credit and thus would have an additional $41.94 to $63.50 deducted per paycheck for the cost of his premium. In 2022, in turn, he did not submit the form and thus did not participate in the program. As a result, White Cap deducted about $63 more from each of his paychecks than it had during his first year, or a total of about $131 per paycheck during 2023.

…nor the next. In 2023, the employee was again able to sign up for the insurance policy and the program, which would take effect in 2024. The annual enrollment period in 2023 was between October 18 and November 1, and employees had until December 31 to submit their forms or “they would not receive the discount to their health insurance premiums the following year.” In 2023, the driver again did not submit the form and he thus received deductions from his paycheck the following year, until he resigned in February of 2024.

Lawsuit. On June 3, 2024 the employee sued, alleging that the employer’s health screening program violates the ADA in two ways. First, he alleged, only “voluntary” medical examinations are allowed by the ADA under 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4), and by tying the annual credit to the employee’s submission to a medical exam, the employer applies a “financial penalty” that coerces employees to submit to the physical rather than doing so “voluntarily.” The driver also alleged that the program does not adequately inform employees as to what medical data will be shared and with whom, as required by “voluntary” programs according to the ADA. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.14(2)(iv).

Second, the employee alleged that White Cap requires participating employees to consent to the release of their confidential medical information in violation of the ADA’s confidentiality requirements for employer-run wellness programs, found in 29 C.F.R. § 1630.14(4).

Class certification? The employee sought to certify a class of “all current and former White Cap employees subject to the [Program] in 2021 to present,” as well as a “subclass of all current and former employees denied the Credit during any pay period from 2021 to present.”

Numerosity satisfied. In its Rule 23(a) analysis, the court first found that the employee satisfied the rule’s mandate that the class be “so numerous that joinder is impracticable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1). In his motion, he alleged that there are “8,405 to 9,492 individuals penalized under the Policy,” but he later amended these numbers, writing that there are “865-2,550 employees” who were “penalized from 2021 to present (excluding those who were ‘flagged’ for a chronic condition and still penalized after submitting their results).” Even with these new numbers, the court found, his proposed class appeared to be sufficiently large to satisfy the numerosity requirement.

Commonality. Certification, however, faltered on the issue of commonality. Rule 23(a)(2) requires “questions of law or fact common to the class,” and the employee argued that the court should find commonality here because he is challenging a “company-wide policy of discrimination.” However, two issues divided the class he proposed: (1) the notice of how a participant’s data would be shared depending on the aspects of the program in which he or she participated, and (2) the coercive impact of the financial credit/penalty.

CCMP as selective. First, the proposed class did not meet the commonality requirement because only some of White Cap’s employees were required to enroll in the CCMP, and those employees were allegedly required to share more of their health data than other employees. The CCMP also presented distinct issues, specifically, whether employees were on notice that their participation in that program involved sharing additional information with White Cap. “[I]t is possible that the Program violated the ADA as to these individuals specifically because of their involvement in the CCMP,” observed the court, “but that would not make the Program unlawful as to other employees.”

Differential economic impact. The second question, about financial coercion, also could not be answered as to the broad class the employee proposed in “one stroke,” said the court, because “the coercive impact of the Annual Physical Credit depends in large part on each employee’s income.” Though there may be a group of employees who, based on the amount of the penalty relative to their income, feel coerced to participate in the program, the employee failed to establish that such coercion would apply across all employee incomes. Indeed, the proposed class, observed the court, “would include not only employees who participated in the Program because they felt financially coerced to do so, but also those who participated because they found its terms and benefits attractive.”

The employee’s motion to certify was accordingly denied.

The case is No. 24-11450.

Judge: Grand, D.

Attorneys: Adam Shereef Akeel (Akeel & Valentine) for Matthew Lobdell. Kimberly Ross (Ford Harrison) for White Cap, LP.

Companies: White Cap, LP

MainStory: TopStory DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination ClassActions PensionBenefitPlans Procedure MichiganNews GCNNews