Published
September 16, 2025
Updated
July 29, 2026
This page tracks a proposed class action over the extra monthly health-insurance fees GardaWorld charged employees who used tobacco or declined a COVID-19 vaccine. The case was dismissed in February 2026 for lack of standing, so there is no settlement, no claim form and nothing to file.
Current Status
There is no claim process. The proposed class action over GardaWorld health-plan tobacco and COVID-19 vaccine surcharges — Artis v. GardaWorld Cash Service, Inc., No. 3:24-cv-00837 (W.D.N.C.) — was dismissed for lack of standing in an order reported as entered February 20, 2026, after the court found that the two named plaintiffs were not participants in the plan during the period at issue. The dismissal was without prejudice, so the same theory is not barred from being brought again by an actual plan participant, but as of July 29, 2026 no refiled complaint, no settlement and no claim process had been located in public sources. There is no settlement fund, no claim form and no deadline connected to this page.StatusDismissed — No Claim ProcessDismissed without prejudice for lack of standing; the merits were not decided.
Claim DeadlineNoneNo claim form and no court-approved claim process exists.
Potential CompensationNone availableNo settlement fund was created. Nothing is payable unless a new case is filed and resolved.
Proof RequiredNot applicableNothing to submit — keep pay stubs and benefits statements in case a claim process opens later.
What the Lawsuit Alleged
The complaint was filed in September 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina against GardaWorld Cash Service, Inc., the U.S. cash-services entity in the GardaWorld group. Plaintiffs alleged that the company health plan charged participants an extra monthly amount if they were identified as nicotine users, and a separate extra monthly amount if they did not submit proof of COVID-19 vaccination. Reporting on the case described those figures as roughly $100 a month for the nicotine surcharge and about $90 a month for the vaccine surcharge.The legal theory was that the surcharges violated the wellness program nondiscrimination rules under ERISA and the implementing regulation at 29 C.F.R. § 2590.702(f), because employees who later satisfied the requirements to avoid a surcharge were not refunded the amounts they had already paid for that plan year. GardaWorld denied wrongdoing and argued that the surcharges complied with ERISA, pointing to a tobacco cessation program employees could complete as the reasonable alternative the rules require.
What the Court Decided
In August 2025 the court ruled on the motion to dismiss, granting it in part and denying it in part. The ERISA breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim was dismissed; the nondiscrimination claims survived and the case moved into discovery.During discovery it emerged that neither of the two named plaintiffs had been enrolled in the GardaWorld health plan during the period at issue. Plaintiffs asked to substitute new representative plaintiffs who had been plan participants and to amend the complaint. The court refused, warning that allowing a putative class action to be launched by people who suffered no injury and then repaired after the absence of standing is exposed would erode the constitutional limits on federal jurisdiction. It dismissed the case without prejudice.
What This Means for GardaWorld Employees
A dismissal for lack of standing is a ruling about who was entitled to bring the case, not a ruling that the surcharges were lawful. The court did not reach the merits of the nondiscrimination claims. Because the dismissal was without prejudice, the same claims could in principle be brought again by someone who actually participated in the plan.Nothing of that kind has been located in public sources as of July 29, 2026. For now there is nothing for a current or former GardaWorld employee to file, claim, register for or sign up to on this page.
Can Employers Charge Higher Health Fees for Smokers or Vapers?
Under federal law an employer-sponsored health plan may charge tobacco users more, but only within limits. The Affordable Care Act permits a tobacco surcharge of up to 50 percent of the cost of coverage. Some states impose stricter rules, and some prohibit the practice outright.When Is a Smoker Surcharge Lawful Under Federal Law?
A tobacco surcharge is treated as a health-contingent wellness program, so it has to satisfy the ACA wellness program provisions. Among other requirements, the plan must offer a reasonable alternative standard — for example a cessation program, counseling or nicotine replacement therapy — that lets an employee avoid the surcharge without necessarily quitting, and it must tell employees the alternative is available. Whether the alternative was properly offered, communicated and credited is where disputes in this line of cases typically arise.Do Wellness Programs Permit Nicotine Testing?
Many employer wellness programs use nicotine or cotinine testing, or a signed attestation, to determine whether an employee uses tobacco. Where a plan charges a surcharge or offers a non-smoker discount, employees must still be given the chance to qualify for the lower rate by completing a reasonable alternative program.Do Any States Limit Smoker Surcharges?
Several states restrict or prohibit tobacco surcharges on health insurance, including California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Vermont, Rhode Island and the District of Columbia. In those jurisdictions, employers and insurers generally cannot charge higher premiums based solely on tobacco use. State rules change, so the controlling law is whatever was in effect in your state for the plan year at issue.How Do I Know If I Was Charged a Surcharge?
Check your pay stubs, health plan enrollment forms and benefits statements for a line item such as "tobacco surcharge" or "nicotine surcharge." Sometimes the charge is not itemized and simply appears as a higher monthly premium than non-smoking colleagues pay. HR or benefits emails and the plan summary of benefits often explain when and why the surcharge was applied, and whether an alternative program was offered.About GardaWorld
GardaWorld is a privately held security and risk management company founded in 1995 and headquartered in Montreal. It provides security guarding, cash logistics and related services, and reports more than 130,000 employees worldwide. GardaWorld Cash Service, Inc. is the U.S. cash-services entity named as the defendant in this case; the dispute concerned that entity and its employee health plan, not the wider group.What Happens Next
The docket step that would change this page is a new complaint brought by a GardaWorld plan participant, or an appeal. Neither had been located in public sources as of July 29, 2026. If a case is refiled and later reaches a settlement, a court-approved claim process with an actual deadline would follow, and this page will be updated with that filing path.What Should I Keep
There is nothing to submit right now. If you want to be ready in case a claim process opens later, hold on to pay stubs or benefits statements showing the surcharge, your health plan enrollment documents and summary of benefits, any HR or benefits correspondence about the surcharge or about a cessation alternative, and your dates of employment and coverage.A Related Case That Reached a Settlement
Employees at Casey's General Stores brought an ERISA class action over a tobacco surcharge that produced a $5.1 million settlement paying plan members automatically. It is the clearest example of what this kind of claim looks like once it survives and resolves. The broader employer smoker and vaping surcharge investigation covers the same rules across other employers.Sources
• Artis v. GardaWorld Cash Service, Inc., No. 3:24-cv-00837 — order on the motion to dismiss (Justia)• Bloomberg Law — GardaWorld Escapes Suit Over Health Plan Smoker, Vaccine Fees
• Affordable Care Act Implementation FAQs — CMS
• State Policies Limiting Premium Surcharges for Tobacco — NCBI/PMC
• American Lung Association — Tobacco Cessation Treatment: What Is Covered?
For more class actions keep scrolling below.
Case
Artis v. GardaWorld Cash Service, Inc.
Case Number
3:24-cv-00837
Court
U.S. District Court, Western District of North Carolina
Claims
ERISA wellness program nondiscrimination · 29 C.F.R. § 2590.702(f)
Status
Dismissed without prejudice — February 2026
Lack of standing; the merits were not decided.
Claim Deadline
None — no claim process exists
Who May Be Affected
GardaWorld health plan participants who paid a tobacco, nicotine or COVID-19 vaccine surcharge
What To Keep
Pay stubs or benefits statements showing the surcharge, plan documents, HR correspondence
