World Financial Group Insurance Agency, Inc.
5 distinct federal employment cases from public court records (2010–2021)
3 trusted published court opinions across 2 distinct cases
What public court records show
Public federal court records list World Financial Group Insurance Agency, Inc. as an employer in 5 distinct federal employment cases between 2010 and 2021.
The most common claims on record were Wage Theft, Wrongful Termination, and Whistleblower.
Cases were filed across 1 state (CA).
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
World Financial Group Insurance Agency, Inc. appears in 3 trusted published federal employment opinions. Recent written decisions on record:
Yeomans v. World Financial Group (2021) — Mixed Result. An employee named Yeomans filed a discrimination lawsuit against World Financial Group, claiming the company treated them unfairly based on protected characteristics covered by employment discrimination laws. The specific details of the alleged discrimination were part of the legal dispute. Read the ruling.
Yeomans v. World Financial Group (2019) — Defendant Win. An employee named Yeomans filed a discrimination lawsuit against their employer, World Financial Group, a financial services company. The worker claimed they faced illegal discrimination in the workplace, though the specific details of the discrimination allegations are not provided in the available court records. Read the ruling.
Michael Gale v. U.S. Department of Labor (2010) — Defendant Win. Michael Gale worked for World Financial Group, Inc. and believed his company was doing something illegal or fraudulent. He reported what he thought was wrongdoing and claimed his employer retaliated against him for speaking up. Read the ruling.
The published opinions primarily involve Wage Theft, Wrongful Termination, Whistleblower. Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Wage Theft, Wrongful Termination and Whistleblower.
Published opinions span California. California 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. California 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 employers with published opinions
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.