Outrage: Age No Benefit for Employee Health Coverage

Photo by Colby Lysne

When Theresa Helton started a nursing job at a urology clinic in 2004, she thought little of the regular deduction taken from her paycheck for her health insurance premium. After all, many employers require a contribution toward health benefits.

But about a year later, Helton, 51, was shocked to learn that many of her coworkers paid nothing for their health benefit despite holding the same position as she did. The reason: age.

The employer, Midwest Urology and Radiation Oncology, had a policy of  contributing an equal amount to each employee’s insurance premium. But due to age, some employees’ premiums exceeded the amount the company paid, leaving the employee to contribute the remainder.

“It wasn’t fair,” Helton of Blue Springs, Mo., says of the different expectations for employees based on age. “Why should I pay more just because of my age? They’re making basically the same amount of money as I am, but when you take money out of my paycheck for my health insurance, then that means I make less.”

Helton contacted the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and was advised that she had a legitimate complaint. Employers are not required to provide health insurance, but if they do they must pay either an equal percentage for all employees or require employees to pay equal amounts, says Jason Rew, Helton’s attorney.

After Helton’s employer learned that she was pursuing the matter, her job duties changed and she was ultimately terminated.

Helton sued the company and won. In April, a court awarded her more than $30,000 to compensate for the money she overpaid in premiums, the wages lost following her firing, and punitive damages.

As for the employer, Linda Dickens, CEO of Midwest Urology and Radiation Oncology, insists the company was acting in the best interests of its employees “including myself and others that are over the age of 50.” She declined further comment.