Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company
6 distinct federal cases coded as employment matters from public court records (2019–2022)
2 trusted published court opinions across 2 distinct cases
What public court records show
In public federal court records, Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company is named as a defendant in 6 federal cases coded as employment matters between 2019 and 2022.
The most common claims on record were Wrongful Termination.
Cases were filed across 2 states, most often in MN.
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 2 distinct cases.
Jurisdictions represented in the analyzed opinions.
About this employer
Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company appears in 2 trusted published federal employment opinions. Recent written decisions on record:
Bowman v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Co. (2019) — Defendant Win. Anthony Bowman applied for long-term disability benefits from his employer's insurance provider, Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company. The company denied his claim, deciding that despite his disabilities, Bowman could still perform some type of work. Bowman disagreed and took the case to court. Read the ruling.
McIntyre v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company (2019) — Plaintiff Win. McIntyre filed a case against Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company over a disability benefits dispute. The insurance company had denied McIntyre's claim for long-term disability benefits under an employee benefit plan. Read the ruling.
The published opinion involves a wrongful termination claim. Browse other wrongful termination rulings for comparable fact patterns and how courts have ruled. Wrongful Termination.
Published opinions span Minnesota (1), Alabama (1). Minnesota 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. Minnesota rulings and Alabama rulings.
These published opinions sit within the financial services sector, where Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank whistleblower protections often supplement standard Title VII claims.
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 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.