[WildHighlander57]

It —is— discriminatory.

From the article:

“By current federal and most state statutes, no employer is legally permitted to discriminate against any employee based on marital status. A penalty against a spouse for non compliance with an employer vaccine mandate is a punitive action only against married persons. Find a court that will look at this as a violation of the discrimination clause, because it only targets married employees. Let’s see what happens.”

[Political Junkie Too]

Find a court that will look at this as a violation of the discrimination clause, because it only targets married employees.

What about single emoloyees who have roommates?

[absalom01]

This is not to defend this action by this company, but "Sundance'" comment that you quote is either dumb or deliberately inflammatory. If she had bothered to read the screencap that she posted, it clearly states that IF an employee elects to cover a spouse or domestic partner under the employer-provided group insurance plan, there would be a new fee if that insured is "unvaccinated", whatever that might come to mean.

You can bet that more of this is coming, though. We're renewing our own group plan, and while our current insurer does not have anything like this, we got quotes from a couple of different companies who told our broker that they would be floating "surcharges" for unvaccinated insureds, employees or insured dependents. They claim to be developing an actuarial basis for this, presumably both as a legal defense, and because insurance is at least loosely based on actuarial data.