Ordinarily, I would agree with you.
From what I understand the master/servant relationship and the common law that defines it is still active to define the privileges and responsibilities of both sides even though the sides have been renamed employer/employee (USSC). A master's jurisdiction of his hired servant ends with the work day, or other period of time between at work and at private life.
'Course modifying statutes would be effective, but I don't think, if some statute allowed the master to mitigate his CHOICE to provide the servant health care, it could possibly extend to health impacting actions on off time hours.
If one thing in private life can be regulated by pinkslip coercion based on financial impact on the master, any thing that impacts health can be, too, like the servant's relationship with their wife or husband. I don't think we want to go there.
If the company prevails in this case, there's a good chance you're going to be shocked at what you see follow.
If one thing in private life can be regulated by pinkslip coercion based on financial impact on the master, any thing that impacts health can be, too, like the servant's relationship with their wife or husband. I don't think we want to go there. I follow your logic, but there's a bigger picture. Entrepreneurs go into business to make money. To make money, entrepreneurs have to employ people who provide value to the company, i.e., a positive return on their investment. If an employer chooses to limit their applicant pool to such an extent that they eliminate the most productive employees, based on immaterial criteria such as marital health, then they are chopping off their nose to spite their face.
Business decisions are primarily (almost exclusively) based on profit, whether on a strategic or tactical level. No successful company is going to winnow down their employment candidate pool to such an extent that they hurt the bottom line. That's the bottom line.