Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company
29 distinct federal employment cases from public court records (1995–2026)
8 trusted published court opinions across 8 distinct cases · 8 docket-only cases without a recorded end date
What public court records show
Public federal court records list Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company as an employer in 29 distinct federal employment cases between 1995 and 2026.
Of the 8 trusted published opinions analyzed, the most common outcomes were: 3 had a mixed result, 2 ended in a ruling for the employer, 2 were sent back to a lower court, and 1 were dismissed.
The most common claims on record were Breach Of Contract and Discrimination.
Cases were filed across 5 states, most often in SC.
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 8 distinct cases.
Jurisdictions represented in the analyzed opinions.
About this employer
Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company appears in 8 trusted published federal employment opinions. The most recent written decision on record:
Arthur H. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CIGNA FINANCIAL ADVISORS, INC., Et Al., Defendants-Appellants (1995) — Remanded. Arthur Williams sued Cigna Financial Advisors for age discrimination, claiming the company treated him unfairly because of his age. However, when Williams was hired, he had signed a NASD U-4 Registration agreement that required him to resolve workplace disputes through arbitration rather than going to court. Read the ruling.
The published opinions primarily involve Breach of Contract (3 of 8), Discrimination, Age Discrimination. Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Breach of Contract, Discrimination and Age Discrimination.
Published opinions span South Carolina (1), Connecticut (1), New Jersey (1), California (1). South Carolina 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. South Carolina rulings, Connecticut rulings, New Jersey rulings and California rulings.
These published opinions sit within the financial services sector, where Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank whistleblower protections often supplement standard Title VII claims.
Opinion Outcomes
Opinion Stages
8 analyzed opinions have a classified procedural stage.
What do these stages mean?
- Appeal
- A higher court reviewing an earlier decision. Many published opinions come from this stage, after a lot has already happened in the case.
- Motion to dismiss
- An early request — usually by the employer — to throw the case out before any evidence is gathered.
Published federal-court opinions only — most workplace disputes are resolved privately. This is not anyone’s odds, and not a finding that any employer violated the law.
Facing something similar? Check your rights →
Claim Types
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 Finance employers
Browse trusted published opinions involving similar workplaces.
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.