Campbell Soup employees claim company penalizes smokers
Requiring workers who smoke to pay more for health insurance violates the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by unfairly targeting employees because of their health status, according to the suit.
Campbell Soup Co. has been hit with a class action suit in New Jersey federal court, claiming that it wrongly charges employees extra for health insurance if they use tobacco products.
Requiring workers who smoke to pay more for health insurance violates the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by unfairly targeting employees because of their health status, according to the suit.
Tobacco surcharges are only lawful if they adhere to ERISA regulations mandating that extra fees are part of a wellness program that meets strict criteria, according to the suit.
These programs must promote health, and must provide a “reasonable alternative standard” for those who can’t meet the initial health requirement, such as participating in a smoking cessation program to avoid the surcharge, the suit claims.
In addition, the employer must communicate the availability of such an alternate standard, the suit said.
The benefit plan at Campbell Soup allegedly failed to offer the alternative standard the law requires, the suit claims.
Even if an alternative standard existed, the company allegedly failed to notify employees of its availability, the suit claims. And Campbell Soup fails to comply with a requirement that participants receive notice that the recommendations of the person’s physician will be accommodated, the suit says.
Campbell Soup charges an extra $12.50 per week, or $650 per year, for insurance to those who use cigarettes, e-cigarettes, cigars and smokeless tobacco. The company also charges tobacco users higher premiums for voluntary life and disability insurance.
According to the complaint, Campbell Soup does not satisfy the requirements for an alternative standard. It offers a “Quit for Life” tobacco cessation program, but its plan description does not sufficiently explain the process by which employees can avoid or remove the surcharge retroactively, the suit states.
The program allows participants to avoid the surcharge if they complete the Quit for Life program, but on a prospective basis only, and only for those who complete the program. But there is no indication that the surcharge is removed retroactively for months already paid or for those who fail to complete the program, the suit states.
“The plan creates an unfair and discriminatory process by only allowing participants who complete the Quit for Life program to have the surcharge refunded on a prospective basis,” the suit claims.
Related: Binge drinking costs employers billions, but help is available
“Participants who complete the program may stop the surcharge for the remainder of the plan year but are not retroactively reimbursed for premiums already paid. This violates ERISA’s requirement that participants receive the ‘full reward’ upon satisfying the alternative standard, as it unfairly denies retro active relief to participants who complete the program,” according to the complaint.
Campbell Soup did not respond to a request for comment about the filing. The suit was filed by Siri & Glimstad of New York. That firm’s Oren Faircloth did not respond to a reporter’s call about the suit.
Other employers are seeing a wave of suits targeting higher health premiums for tobacco users. Siri & Glimstad also filed suits naming PepsiCo, in the Southern District of New York; Target, in the District of Minnesota; 7-Eleven, in the Western District of Pennsylvania; and Walmart, in the Eastern District of Wisconsin.
Another firm, Stueve Siegel Hanson in Kansas City, Missouri, has filed similar suits against Compass Group USA and Bass Pro Group, both in the Western District of Missouri; and Tractor Supply, in the Middle District of Pennsylvania.