Lawsuit: Casey's exploits employees with tobacco-use surcharge
This convenience store on West Des Moines' Grand Avenue is part of the Casey's General Store chain, which is being sued over the tobacco-use surcharge imposed on employees. (Main photo by Clark Kauffman/Iowa Capital Dispatch. Inset photo of company policy is from U.S. District Court records)
Casey's General Store is being sued for allegedly exploiting its workers through the discriminatory practice of imposing a tobacco-use surcharge for health insurance coverage.
The surcharge, which is alleged to be $35 per pay period, amounts to an illegal 'cash grab' by Casey's that is masquerading as a wellness program, the lawsuit claims.
Filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, the lawsuit seeks class-action status but is currently filed on behalf of one Casey's employee, Elizabeth Blalock of Carroll County, Missouri.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Attorneys for Blalock allege that all Casey's workers are automatically assumed to use tobacco unless they submit to a process in which they provide a sworn affidavit stating they do not. Any worker who fails to complete that process by a specified deadline is then required to pay 'tobacco surcharge' for the entire calendar year, even if they do not use tobacco, the lawsuit claims.
In addition, Casey's allegedly fails to provide the federally required options that would allow employees to avoid the surcharge. 'The surcharge is structured as a penalty rather than a legitimate wellness incentive,' the lawsuit claims, since the workers 'who miss the enrollment deadline are penalized for the entire year without any opportunity to later demonstrate compliance or avoid the surcharge.'
The lawsuit is based on the requirements of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. ERISA allows employers to deduct from workers' pay a tobacco-use surcharge, but only in connection with wellness programs that meet specific federal guidelines established in 2014. Those regulations state they are intended to ensure corporate wellness programs actually promote health as opposed to being a 'subterfuge for discriminating based on a health factor.'
The lawsuit alleges Casey's is illegally shifting the costs associated with less healthy workers from the company back to those same workers 'who end up subsidizing their healthier colleagues.'
ERISA bars any health insurer or medical plan from discriminating against participants by charging premiums based on a 'health-related factor,' including tobacco use. It does, however, allow group health plans to establish premium discounts or rebates' in return for adherence to programs that promote wellness and disease prevention.
Casey's, the lawsuit claims, does not meet that standard.
'There is no smoking-cessation program, waiver, or alternative route for tobacco users' to avoid the surcharge, the lawsuit alleges. 'The only avenue for smokers to avoid the surcharge is to quit smoking and then submit that change in status to the benefits department. Thus, tobacco users are penalized based solely on their status as smokers, which violates ERISA's nondiscrimination provisions.'
The lawsuit goes on to allege that 'allowing companies like Casey's to exploit their participants and unlawfully extract millions from them under the guise of a wellness program that is, in reality, a cash grab, directly contradicts ERISA's purpose of protecting workers from health-based discrimination. If unchecked, this practice would permit employers to manipulate wellness programs as revenue generating schemes rather than genuine health initiatives.'
According to the lawsuit, Blalock has forfeited to Casey's $35 in earnings per pay period — roughly $910 per year — in order to maintain health coverage through the company.
Casey's, which is headquartered in Ankeny, is one of the nation's largest convenience store chains, with more than 2,600 locations in 16 states. There are more than 18,000 employees enrolled in the company's health plan, according to court records.
In seeking class-action status for their lawsuit, the plaintiff's attorneys argue the amount of money at issue exceeds $5 million, and the number of Casey's workers who might potentially join the case is more than 1,000.
The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for unlawful imposition of a discriminatory tobacco surcharge and breach of fiduciary duty. Casey's has yet to file a response to the lawsuit. The company did not immediately respond Monday to requests for comment.
The plaintiff is represented by attorney Adam J. Wachal of the Koley Jessen law firm in Omaha.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Class-Action Lawsuit Accuses the Archery Industry of Price Fixing
A proposed class-action lawsuit filed in federal court last week is accusing the archery industry of colluding to fix prices of products at all levels. The suit, which was filed May 30 in U.S. District Court in Utah, names big-box store retailers like Bass Pro Shops, bowmakers like Mathews, and the Archery Trade Association for conspiring 'to fix the prices of — and eliminate price discounting and competition for — archery products.' The suit was first reported by Reuters on Monday. The 63-page lawsuit hinges on a policy known as Minimum Advertised Pricing, or MAP. Many archery companies and outdoor retailers won't sell their archery equipment, particularly compound bows, for less than a certain amount. If a bow shop undercuts agreed upon prices, manufacturers can — and have — enforced their MAP policies by revoking a shop's authorized dealer status for their brand. The lawsuit accuses the ATA of a 'campaign to artificially raise prices through MAP policies.' MAP policies grew from a need to combat online retail giants like Amazon. The global retailer began undercutting brick and mortar shops by selling products at discount, and without the previously included advice and bow servicing that local sporting goods stores offered customers for free when they purchased equipment. For example, flagship bows from top companies like Mathews, Hoyt, PSE, Bowtech, and others are not sold online. So if you want to purchase the new Mathews, you must show up in person at an authorized dealer. Usually, your local bow shop won't sell you a new bow below the MAP. While there, however, you'll have the opportunity to test-shoot bows and have a bow technician set up your bow properly. If new top bows were to be sold online and shipped directly to your home, industry insiders agree that local bow shops would be doomed. In recent years there's also been a rise in knock-off companies ripping off the design and packaging of top archery products, then selling them at discounted prices online. Customers would think they were buying a brand's top-tier broadheads, but actually receive a cheaper Chinese-made product. Warranty claims began to increase, and archery companies found themselves dealing with quality control and brand degradation. MAP policies were designed to help address this. MAP is a complicated issue, according to industry insiders, but such practices are legal when executed correctly and do not qualify as price fixing as defined by the Federal Trade Commission. The key distinction is that price fixing usually occurs between competitors, while MAP pricing occurs throughout the entire industry. 'MAP is generally legal if it's implemented unilaterally by the manufacturer,' says one former archery industry insider, who asked not to be identified due to the pending litigation. 'Price fixing is when competitors agree to a fixed price. And of course, a manufacturer and a retailer aren't competitors: one is a supplier, one is the seller.' The key, they emphasize, is 'unilaterally.' That means a manufacturer cannot favor one shop or distributor by offering one better pricing. Meanwhile, as e-commerce sales of low-priced and knock-off archery products continued to grow, bow manufacturers and accessory makers looked for an industry-wide solution. To protect their brand values and the industry itself, many companies began implementing MAP policies. 'MAP was completely legal,' the source says. 'No one was suggesting retailers fix prices and force consumers to buy X product at Z price. That never happened and never would have happened. And obviously retailers wouldn't have agreed to it. Retailers want the ability to do things their own way.' Another consideration is that price fixing is often done secretly — because it's illegal. MAP policies are widely publicized by everyone from the ATA to individual manufacturers. (You can find Bowtech's MAP policy here.) One key allegation the lawsuit may be seeking to prove, however, is that the industry tried to enforce not just the advertised price, but the sales price of archery equipment. 'Do I think there's price fixing? No, I've never participated in it. I know that I have dealers sell way below MAP in their store, but they do not advertise that way. And that is their decision. That is their store. I cannot dictate what they sell it for,' said one bow company executive who was not authorized by their legal team to speak publicly about the lawsuit. 'It's a slippery slope because if there's no protection from an advertising standpoint, the big guys are gonna gobble up the small guys. There are shops in the country right now that sell Mathews at $50 to a $100 over cost so that they will sell every Mathews within a 150 mile radius and try to push the smaller guys out of business. I've been told that by big dealers. They don't advertise it but people just know they go in there, you know, they're gonna pay $50 to a hundred over as opposed to $350 to $400 over. So if they could start advertising on what they want and there's nothing we could do, it would drive half the shops in this country out of business.' Because ATA is a non-profit organization, its records are subject to public records requests. The lawsuit is packed with excerpts of these statements that are intended to bolster the price-fixing argument. Here are a few examples: 'These coordinated MAPs have benefited the industry collectively, allowing retailers and distributors to 'strive for a minimum of 40% profit,' according to the industry trade association National Archery Buyers Association ('NABA'). As one Archery Products retailer observed, 'Every dealer I have ever talked to thinks everything in archery is overpriced today, just as I do . . . . [I]s archery overpriced, absolutely.' 'The ATA explained that 'MAP . . .policies help retailers stay in tune with the market and margin expectations. In other words, if you understand and follow a manufacturer's MAP policy, you'll be better positioned to make more money and run a successful business.' The suit is brought by plaintiff Joseph Santarlas from Delaware County, Pennsylvania, 'on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated.' In other words, anyone who has bought the archery products referenced in the suit. Santarlas was working Friday and was not immediately available for comment when reached by phone. None of the eight attorneys who signed their names to the lawsuit have replied to Outdoor Life's repeated requests for comment this week. Four different firms, with offices in California, Washington D.C., New York, and Pennsylvania, are listed as counsel for the plaintiff. Most of the firms specialize in antitrust and class-action lawsuits. One industry insider noted that the defendants named in the suit are all larger companies with deeper pockets that might be able to settle such a lawsuit before ever reaching court. Smaller manufacturers and mom-and-pop bow shops are not named. The lawsuit names: Hoyt Bowtech Mathews PSE Cabela's Dick's Bass Pro Shop Jay's Sporting Goods Kinsey's Outdoors Lancaster Archery Supply Archery Trade Association Two software companies that helped companies track MAP pricing Most companies listed in the lawsuit, including Bass Pro Shops, did not return requests for comment or declined to comment to OL. The Archery Trade Association also did not return a call for comment, but issued a brief public statement via email on Friday shortly after OL reached out. Read Next: The Heavy Arrow Trend Is Dead. Speed Is Back 'The Archery Trade Association has learned of a recently filed lawsuit against the ATA and a group of archery manufacturers, distributors and retailers,' reads the statement. 'The complaint seeks relief related to Minimum Advertised Pricing (MAP) policies dating back more than a decade. The ATA is in the process of preparing an appropriate response to the complaint and looks forward to a swift and favorable conclusion to this matter.' Scott Einsmann contributed reporting.
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
AstraZeneca sues Utah attorney general over new drug pricing law
AstraZeneca, a major pharmaceutical company, has sued Utah's Attorney General Derek Brown over a recently passed state law allowing for lower pricing in pharmacies. The lawsuit concerns how SB69, passed during the 2025 state legislative session, deals with Section 340B of the federal Public Health Service Act. The suit was filed in May in the U.S. District Court of the District of Utah. The lawsuit argues that SB69 violates federal law by expanding the 340B drug discount program to unlimited pharmacies. The 340B drug discount program is designed to provide pricing benefits to specific eligible health care entities. It requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to offer products at steeply discounted rates for a specific list of entities. 'Because such price controls can disincentivize innovation and destabilize markets, Congress carefully crafted Section 340B and limited participation in the program to fifteen — and only fifteen — types of covered entities," per the lawsuit. It also points out that for-profit pharmacy chains, such as CVS and Walgreens, were not included in the list of covered entities. AstraZeneca's suit seeks for an order declaring that SB69 violates federal law and is unconstitutional. It also seeks to stop Brown and Utah Insurance Commissioner Jon Pike from enforcing SB69 against AstraZeneca in any manner. The Utah Attorney General's Office said Friday it had no comment on the lawsuit. SB69, which was sponsored by Sen. Evan Vickers, R-Cedar City, defines terms related to the 340B drug discount program and prohibits pharmaceutical manufacturers from setting certain restrictions. Under the law, manufacturers cannot prohibit or restrict pharmacies from contracting with 340B entities. They also cannot deny these 340B entities access to specific drugs. 'Apparently dissatisfied with the scope of federal law, the State of Utah has enacted a statute seeking to achieve under state law precisely the same result that federal courts have resoundingly rejected,' per the suit. 'The state law requires pharmaceutical manufacturers to offer 340B-discounted pricing for sales at an unlimited number of contract pharmacies.' The suit says that SB69 extends Section 340B price caps beyond the scope of the federal program, requiring manufacturers to make discounted drugs available for sale at any and all pharmacies 'authorized by a 340B entity to receive the drug.' It alleges that the law extends the discounts to new categories of transactions that are not covered by the program, thus conflicting with federal law requirements. The suit argues that the law conflicts with federal law, specifically court rulings that 'make clear that the federal 340B statute does not obligate manufacturers to deliver discounted drugs to unlimited contract pharmacies." According to the suit, SB69 also violates federal patent law, which 'prohibits states from regulating the price of patented goods.' 'It requires manufacturers like AstraZeneca to offer steeply discounted prices for the sale of their patented drugs, thereby extending federal price caps to an additional category of patented drug sales (contract pharmacy sales) that federal courts have held fall outside of the 340B program. It also argues that SB69 violates the Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution's takings clause.
Yahoo
18 hours ago
- Yahoo
How To Earn $500 A Month From Casey's Stock Ahead Of Q4 Earnings
Casey's General Stores, Inc. (NASDAQ:CASY) will release its fourth-quarter financial results after the closing bell on Monday, June 9. Analysts expect the company to report quarterly earnings at $1.95 per share, down from $2.34 per share in the year-ago period. Casey's projects quarterly revenue of $3.95 billion, compared to $3.6 billion a year earlier, according to data from Benzinga Pro. On April 11, Keybanc analyst Bradley Thomas initiated coverage of Casey's with an Overweight rating and announced a price target of $500. With the recent buzz around Casey's, some investors may be eyeing potential gains from the company's dividends too. As of now, Casey's offers an annual dividend yield of 0.45%, which is a quarterly dividend amount of 50 per share ($2.00 a year). To figure out how to earn $500 monthly from Casey's, we start with the yearly target of $6,000 ($500 x 12 months). Next, we take this amount and divide it by Casey's $2.00 dividend: $6,000 / 2.00 = 3,000 shares. So, an investor would need to own approximately $1,337,070 worth of Casey's, or 3,000 shares to generate a monthly dividend income of $500. Assuming a more conservative goal of $100 monthly ($1,200 annually), we do the same calculation: $1,200 / $2.00 = 600 shares, or $267,414 to generate a monthly dividend income of $100. View more earnings on CASY Note that dividend yield can change on a rolling basis, as the dividend payment and the stock price both fluctuate over time. The dividend yield is calculated by dividing the annual dividend payment by the current stock price. As the stock price changes, the dividend yield will also change. For example, if a stock pays an annual dividend of $2 and its current price is $50, its dividend yield would be 4%. However, if the stock price increases to $60, the dividend yield would decrease to 3.33% ($2/$60). Conversely, if the stock price decreases to $40, the dividend yield would increase to 5% ($2/$40). Further, the dividend payment itself can also change over time, which can also impact the dividend yield. If a company increases its dividend payment, the dividend yield will increase even if the stock price remains the same. Similarly, if a company decreases its dividend payment, the dividend yield will decrease. CASY Price Action: Shares of Casey's fell by 0.6% to close at $445.69 on More: Photo: Shutterstock UNLOCKED: 5 NEW TRADES EVERY WEEK. Click now to get top trade ideas daily, plus unlimited access to cutting-edge tools and strategies to gain an edge in the markets. Get the latest stock analysis from Benzinga? CASEY'S GENERAL STORES (CASY): Free Stock Analysis Report This article How To Earn $500 A Month From Casey's Stock Ahead Of Q4 Earnings originally appeared on © 2025 Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved. Erreur lors de la récupération des données Connectez-vous pour accéder à votre portefeuille Erreur lors de la récupération des données Erreur lors de la récupération des données Erreur lors de la récupération des données Erreur lors de la récupération des données
