Skip to main content

Kollar v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada

W.D. Wash.September 16, 2021No. 3:20-cv-05278
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
Labor: E.R.I.S.A.
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unknown
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
summary judgment

Related Laws

Claim Types

Failure to Accommodate

Outcome

The court granted the defendant's motion for final judgment and denied the plaintiff's motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he was totally disabled and unable to perform his material and substantial job duties prior to his May 11, 2018 termination, as required by the LTD policy.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** An employee named Kollar filed a lawsuit against Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, claiming the company violated ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) rules. ERISA is a federal law that protects workers' retirement and health benefits. The case also involved issues related to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which protects workers from disability discrimination. The specific details of what Sun Life allegedly did wrong are not provided in the available information. **What the Court Decided** The outcome of this case is not available in the provided information. The case was filed in September 2021 in the Western District of Washington federal court, but the final decision has not been reported. **Why This Matters for Workers** ERISA cases are important because they involve the benefits workers depend on for their financial security, including health insurance, disability benefits, and retirement plans. When companies manage these benefits improperly or deny valid claims, ERISA gives workers the right to sue. This type of case reminds workers that they have legal protections when employers or insurance companies handle their benefits unfairly, especially when disability issues are involved.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Amoroso
W.D. Wash.Sep 2021
Defendant Win
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School and St. Francis Xavier Church
D.C. CircuitJul 1997
Remanded
People in re S.L. and A.L
COLOCTAPPDec 2017

The Rio Blanco County Department of Human Services (Department) became involved with the parents in this case as a result of concerns about the children's welfare due to the condition of the family home, the parents' use of methamphetamine, and criminal cases involving the parents. Attempts at voluntary services failed, and on the Department's petition for dependency and neglect, the district court ultimately terminated the parents' rights. On appeal, the parents contended that the Department failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify them with their children. Specifically, the parents contended that the Department did not give them sufficient time to complete the services under their treatment plans and failed to accommodate their drug testing needs. The termination hearing was not held until more than a year after the motion to terminate was filed. For nine months before the motion to terminate was filed, the Department provided numerous services to the parents, including substance abuse therapy, therapeutic visitation supervision, drug abuse monitoring, and a parental capacity evaluation. The Department also provided counseling for the children. Both parents missed drug tests and tested positive during the testing period, and both were arrested for possession of methamphetamine during the pendency of the case. The Department made reasonable accommodations to meet the parents' needs and the parents had sufficient time to comply with their treatment plans. The record supports the trial court's findings that termination was appropriate because (1) the court-approved appropriate treatment plan had not been complied with by the parents or had not been successful in rehabilitating them (2) the parents were unfit and (3) the conduct or condition of the parents was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. Father also contended that the trial court's decision to interview the 9-year-old twin children together in chambers fundamentally and seriously affected the basi

Defendant Win
Shelley Savage v. Glendale Union High School, District No. 205, Maricopa County
9th CircuitSep 2003
Plaintiff Win
James Chappel v. Laboratory Corporation of America, AKA National Health Lab
9th CircuitNov 2000
Mixed Result

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.