What you are describing is not a mandatory insurance provision. Rather it's simply a pay cut from $19 per hours to $16, because there is no way to avoid the pay reduction.
That said, there is no express law prohibiting the employer's policy. The policy could be found to be unlawful discrimination if it disparately impacts certain minority groups (over/under 40 years, gender, etc.). Or, it could be viewed as "conversion" (civil theft), because the employer is forcing the employee to accept a service that the employee may not want.
However, the change that the employer has now made, is probably the result of receiving legal counsel to that effect. Now that it's simply a pay cut, there's likely no law being violated.
Even if you were to sue on the theory that this is all a pretext for a paycut, you woud lose, because there is no law against cutting employee pay.
Hope this helps.
Terms and Conditions: By your continuing in this conversation with me, or by your clicking “Accept”, you are expressly agreeing to all of the following: (1) our communication is for entertainment purposes only; (2) you are not consulting me in my professional capacity as an attorney; (3) you do not seek to establish an attorney-client relationship with me, nor do I with you; (4) you will not rely on anything I say and you will obtain appropriate legal counsel via a traditional/office consultation with an attorney licensed to practice in the jurisdiction where your legal issue arises (and you may not use our communication to avoid taxpayer penalties imposed by the U.S. Dept. of Treasury); (5) by communicating with me in this public forum you are irrevocably waiving any right to privacy, confidentiality and attorney-client privilege concerning the matters discussed. You further separately declare that any payment made by you is not consideration for this contract, nor offered for any services rendered by me on your behalf, but rather is made in genuine admiration and respect for my desire to help others. If you do not agree with these terms and conditions, then you must advise me immediately.
You're altering the facts to suit your argument. If that's what you want to do, then you can be correct, because I can change my answer to suit whatever facts you present.
For example, if you characterize the employer's actions as forcing you to accept health insurace rather than the wage equivalent, then that would be the tort of conversion, and you could sue the employer for damages, due to the theft.
However, previously you described facts that suggest you have been subjected to a pay cut of $3.00 per hour -- and there's nothing unlawful about that. If you continue to work, then you are consenting to the pay cut.
Texas is an "at will" employment jurisdiction, and under that well-established doctrine, an employer or employee can alter or terminate the employment relationship at any time and for any reason -- or for no reason at all. See Montgomery County Hosp. Dist. v. Brown, 965 S.W.2d 501, 502 (Tex. 1998).
Thus, your employer can cut your pay at any time and your only recourse is to quit your job.
Re your "signed contract." A written statement that you do not want insurance, under the "at will" doctrine, applies only as long as each party to the contract agrees to continue the employment relationship unchanged. As soon as someone wants to change the deal, they can, and as soon as they do, if the other party continues to work or employ, the deal is confirmed as changed.
I know that you are certain that the employer must be violating some law. I can tell you that in Texas, an employer can successfully fire an employee, even though the employee was being asked to violate a criminal law, unless the employee can prove that the termination was for the sole reason of refusing to violate the law. This means, that if the employer had any other reason for terminating the employee, that it could use that reason in combination with the fact that the employee refused to violate the law, and thereby fire the employee. See Sabine Pilot Services Inc v. Hauck, 687 S.W.2d 733, 735 (Tex. 1985).
The point I'm trying to make here is that the employment relationship has always heavily favor employers in Texas, and there appears to be no end in sight. So, while you may want to believe that you are being wronged, that wrong is not necessarily illegal.
The law does not right all wrongs. It just maintains order among members of society.
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided “as is”. To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the “Verified” symbol in the Expert’s profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).