In a release, the company said the commission "is unfamiliar with the details of our wellness programs and woefully out of step with the healthcare marketplace and with the core intent of [PPACA] to provide expanded access and improved health care to all Americans. The incentives in our wellness programs are pro consumer and have delivered demonstrably better healthcare outcomes for employees and their families. The incentives we provide are specifically sanctioned by two separate Federal statutes – the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and [PPACA]. Honeywell's wellness plan incentives are in strict compliance with both HIPAA and the [PPACA's] guidelines, which were designed by Congress to encourage healthier lifestyles while helping to control health care costs. No Honeywell employee has ever been denied health care coverage or disciplined in any way as a result of their voluntary decision not to participate in our wellness programs."

 But Honeywell wasn't alone in its criticism of the EEOC.

The National Business Group on Health called the commission's maneuver another example of the EEOC's refusal to offer guidance to businesses on designing wellness plans.

"Employers have been seeking guidance from EEOC regarding how the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 apply to wellness programs for years and the EEOC has yet to issue clear guidance," said Brian Marcotte, NBGH President and CEO. "The EEOC has had numerous opportunities to provide that guidance but has failed to do so. Their lack of clear guidance, plus the recent legal action conflicts with the message of HIPAA and the Affordable Care Act, which encourages the adoption and expansion of programs that benefit the health of employees and their families."

The ERISA Industry Committee, a trade association dedicated to the advancement of large employer benefits plans, lashed out at the commission.

Gretchen Young, ERIC Senior Vice President for Health Policy, branded the TRO request "an outrageous development, and one that could potentially jeopardize not only the health of America's workers, but also that of their spouses.

"Our primary concern is that it apparently is no longer enough for an employer-sponsored wellness plan to comply with the applicable requirements under [PPACA]. The EEOC has apparently decided that it will be playing by a different set of rules, with no forewarning to companies whatsoever," she said. "Even though large American companies have invested a huge amount of time, money, and manpower into making sure that their wellness programs comply with the [PPACA], now here comes the EEOC out of left field with a whole new set of rules and regulations to impose on these programs.  What happened to the old-fashioned American value of letting companies know what the rules are before you slap them with a suit?"

Young also criticized the EEOC's claim that the Honeywell program violates GINA.  

"It is difficult to describe the absurdity of denying companies the ability to try to help American families, including a worker's spouse, to help rein in their health risks.  It is hard to fathom that the EEOC claims that a company can't provide an incentive to a worker's spouse to complete a health risk screening because the spouse's information is considered 'genetic information' with respect to the employee." 

The EEOC argues the ADA requires that such medical testing be voluntary. 

"The employer cannot require it or penalize employees who decide not to go through with it. GINA prohibits employers from offering inducements to obtain family medical history, which would include the medical information that Honeywell seeks from its employees' spouses. Two Honeywell employees have filed charges with the EEOC, raising individual and class claims," the commission said in a release.

"This has to slow down," said John Hendrickson, regional attorney for the EEOC's Chicago District Office. "Employers have to respect employees' and their spouses' rights to the privacy of their medical information, and cannot seek to compel it by imposing pro­hibitively high penalties. It is important that the EEOC have the space and time to investi­gate this free from the probability that employees will suffer irreparable harm by feeling compelled to go through the testing."