Canada Life Assurance Company
3 distinct federal cases coded as employment matters from public court records (2000–2009)
3 trusted published court opinions across 3 distinct cases
What public court records show
In public federal court records, Canada Life Assurance Company is named as a defendant in 3 federal cases coded as employment matters between 2000 and 2009.
The most common claims on record were Failure To Accommodate, Breach Of Contract, and Wrongful Termination.
Cases were filed across 1 state (MO).
These figures summarize publicly available U.S. federal court records only. Most workplace disputes are resolved privately and never appear in litigation. A case outcome reflects many factors and is not a finding that any employer violated the law.
Written decisions across 3 distinct cases.
Jurisdictions represented in the analyzed opinions.
About this employer
Canada Life Assurance Company appears in 3 trusted published federal employment opinions. Recent written decisions on record:
Teresa Vegter v. Canada Life Assurance Co. (2009) — Defendant Win. Teresa Vegter sued Canada Life Assurance Co., claiming the company failed to accommodate her needs and broke its contract with her. She was seeking disability benefits after her employment ended and argued she was entitled to long-term disability coverage. Read the ruling.
Carson v. Canada Life Assurance Co. (2002) — Plaintiff Win. Read the ruling.
Eugene Herring v. The Canada Life Assurance Company (2000) — Plaintiff Win. This case involved Eugene Herring, who brought an employment-related legal dispute against his employer, The Canada Life Assurance Company. While the specific details of Herring's complaint are not provided in the available information, the case dealt with employment law issues between the worker and the insurance comp… Read the ruling.
The published opinions primarily involve Failure to Accommodate, Breach of Contract, Wrongful Termination. Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Failure to Accommodate, Breach of Contract and Wrongful Termination.
Published opinions span Missouri. Missouri is an EEOC deferral state, which extends the federal Title VII / ADA / ADEA filing deadline from 180 to 300 days. Browse state-specific employment rulings for jurisdictional patterns. Missouri rulings.
Claim Types
States
What these numbers mean
A case is one lawsuit, identified by its court and docket number. The docket is the running court record for that same case — it is not an extra case.
A published opinion or ruling is a written court decision. One case can produce several opinions, so opinion counts and case counts answer different questions. Only trusted, reportable opinions are used in the outcome statistics on this page.
Docket entries are the individual filings inside a case — motions, orders, scheduling notices. We read them to confirm a case is real and to see where it got to, but an entry is never counted as a case or as an outcome. A single case can generate hundreds of entries.
Far fewer opinions than cases is normal. Many employment cases settle privately or close without a published opinion. No opinion here does not mean the worker lost; it means this public record does not show a reportable result.
Everything on this page comes from public federal court records. Where we are not confident a record is accurate, we leave it out rather than guess.
Federal court cases
public court recordsOne row per court+docket case · written opinions stay grouped inside their case · plaintiff names redacted
Other court records naming this party
3 published opinions name this party but are not coded with an employment claim. Some are labor, unemployment or workers’ compensation matters whose claim type was not recorded; others are not employment disputes at all. They are not counted in any figure on this page, and no outcome is shown for them.
Other employers with published opinions
Browse trusted published opinions involving other employers.
Data sourced from public federal court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes extracted using AI analysis. This information is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The presence of an employer on this page does not imply wrongdoing — many cases are dismissed or resolved without findings of liability.