Honeywell employees who paid a tobacco surcharge for coverage under the Honeywell International Inc. Benefit Plan since November 12, 2020 may be covered by a proposed class action alleging Honeywell’s surcharge program violated ERISA’s ban on health-based premium differences. No class has been certified and there is nothing to file yet.
Allegations Only · No Settlement Yet
This article describes a class action complaint. The statements below are unproven allegations. Honeywell has not been found liable, there is no certified class, and nothing to claim at this time. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
What Is This About?
A proposed class action filed November 13, 2026 claims Honeywell International Inc. unlawfully charged employees extra for health coverage because they, or a covered spouse or partner, used tobacco. The case is Bolen v. Honeywell International, Inc., No. 3:26-cv-00978, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina in Charlotte, where Honeywell is headquartered.The plaintiff, a former Honeywell employee from Indiana, says he paid the surcharge out of his paychecks from at least 2019 until he left the company in March 2026. He sues under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act on behalf of himself, a nationwide class and the Honeywell International Inc. Benefit Plan. These are allegations. Honeywell has not been found liable and had not responded in court as of November 14, 2026.
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
How the Honeywell Surcharge Worked
According to the complaint, every employee enrolling in Honeywell medical coverage, along with any covered spouse or domestic partner, had to complete an annual biometric screening by a deadline in the fall before the plan year. The screening was a blood draw by the plan’s vendor that included a cotinine test for nicotine. A participant whose result showed tobacco use paid a $1,000 surcharge for the next plan year, taken in equal parts from each paycheck. In earlier plan years, the complaint says, the surcharge was $1,500.A participant who did not complete the screening was deemed a tobacco user, whether or not the person had ever used tobacco, and also owed a $500 biometric surcharge, subject to a combined cap of $1,000 per person and $2,000 per couple. On information and belief, the complaint says the charge showed on pay stubs, if at all, only as “Hlth Care Resources Penalty.”
The complaint says the only way out that Honeywell’s materials described for an identified tobacco user was to enroll in the plan’s cessation program and complete at least one coaching call before the fall deadline. A participant who quit or finished the program after the deadline still paid for the full year: Honeywell’s benefits page said the surcharge “is removed” after completing the program, and the plan document said premium changes apply “on a prospective basis only” and amounts already deducted “will not be refunded.”
Why the Complaint Says It Violates ERISA
ERISA and the Public Health Service Act prohibit a group health plan from charging one participant more than a similarly situated participant because of a health factor, and tobacco use counts as one. The exception is a wellness program that meets the federal rules at 29 C.F.R. § 2590.702(f). For an outcome-based program like a nicotine test, those rules require a reasonable alternative standard through which anyone who does not meet the initial standard can earn the full reward, and notice of that alternative in every plan document that describes the program, with contact information and a statement that a personal physician’s recommendations will be accommodated.The complaint alleges Honeywell’s program fell short in several ways. It says no alternative let a participant avoid the surcharge for the entire year before the 2027 plan year. It says the enrollment FAQs for 2023 through 2027 described the surcharge at length but did not say an alternative was open to every tobacco user, did not mention a waiver and did not include the physician statement. It says the only accommodation language was limited to pregnancy or a “significant medical issue,” which it argues is a stricter test than the rules allow, and that the summary plan description offered an alternative only to those “unable to participate” in a cessation program. It also says the plan offered no alternative at all for the $500 biometric surcharge.
The complaint describes a change for the 2027 plan year. Enrollment materials published in June 2026 said, for the first time, that a participant who missed the screening deadline could finish a cessation program by December 31, 2027 and have any 2027 tobacco surcharge refunded. The complaint argues this shows a full-year alternative was feasible all along, and that the new language still covers only the tobacco surcharge and still omits the waiver and physician statements.
The complaint cites rulings in which courts refused to dismiss similar claims, including Bokma v. Performance Food Group in the Eastern District of Virginia, Chirinian v. Travelers in the District of Minnesota and McNeil v. Marriott International in the District of Maryland. It also relies on the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Cunningham v. Cornell University for the argument that Honeywell bears the burden of proving its program qualifies for the wellness exception.
What the Lawsuit Asks For
The complaint brings five counts. Two are statutory claims under ERISA § 502(a)(3), one for the lack of a reasonable alternative standard and one for the lack of required notice. Three are fiduciary-breach claims under § 502(a)(2): breach of the duty of loyalty, breach of the duty of prudence and failure to monitor the people Honeywell delegated plan administration to. The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that Honeywell kept the surcharges in its general assets to offset the cost of its self-insured medical options, rather than holding them in trust for the plan.It asks the court to certify the class, order Honeywell to reimburse every participant who paid the surcharge during the class period, require Honeywell to bring any future surcharge program into compliance, bar collection of the surcharge until then, order disgorgement and an accounting, remove fiduciaries found to have breached their duties, and award interest, attorneys’ fees and costs.
Honeywell can respond, likely with a motion to dismiss. Tobacco surcharge cases against other large employers have moved quickly in the past two years, and several have settled with refunds to people who paid. Any payment in this case would require a judgment or a settlement approved by the court, followed by notice to class members.
Questions
How did the Honeywell tobacco surcharge work, according to the complaint?
The complaint says employees and covered spouses or domestic partners enrolling in Honeywell medical coverage had to complete an annual biometric screening, including a blood test for nicotine, by a fall deadline. A positive result led to a $1,000 tobacco surcharge for the following plan year, deducted from each paycheck; earlier years carried a $1,500 surcharge. Anyone who skipped the screening was treated as a tobacco user and charged an additional $500 biometric surcharge, with a combined cap of $1,000 per person and $2,000 per couple.
Why does the lawsuit say the surcharge was illegal?
Federal law bars group health plans from charging more based on a health factor such as tobacco use unless the charge is part of a wellness program that meets federal rules. Those rules require a reasonable alternative standard through which a participant can earn the full reward for the whole year, and notice of that alternative in all plan materials describing the program, including contact information and a statement that a personal physician’s recommendations will be accommodated. The complaint alleges Honeywell’s program did not offer a full-year alternative before 2027 and never gave the required notice. Honeywell has not been found liable.
Who is in the proposed Honeywell class?
The complaint proposes a class of all persons in the United States who paid Honeywell’s tobacco surcharge in connection with the Honeywell International Inc. Benefit Plan at any time from November 12, 2020 to the date of judgment. It excludes Honeywell, its officers and directors, the plan’s fiduciaries, the court and government entities.
What changed in Honeywell’s 2027 plan materials?
According to the complaint, Honeywell’s enrollment materials for the 2027 plan year, published in June 2026, said for the first time that a participant who missed the screening deadline could complete a cessation program by December 31, 2027 and have any 2027 tobacco surcharge refunded. The complaint argues that change does not cover earlier years, does not apply to the $500 biometric surcharge and still leaves out the waiver and physician statements the rules require.
Can Honeywell employees get money from this lawsuit now?
No. The case was filed November 13, 2026 and is at the complaint stage. There is no settlement, fund or claim form. The complaint asks the court to order Honeywell to return the surcharges collected during the class period, but money would only be paid through a judgment or a court-approved settlement. Several similar tobacco surcharge cases against other employers have settled, and those settlements paid class members through a court-supervised process.
Sources
• CourtListener — Bolen v. Honeywell International, Inc., No. 3:26-cv-00978 (W.D.N.C.) docket and complaint• eCFR — 29 C.F.R. § 2590.702, nondiscrimination and wellness programs
• Federal Register — Incentives for Nondiscriminatory Wellness Programs in Group Health Plans (June 3, 2013)
