Skip to main content

Keil v. CIGNA & Intracorp Rehab Management

D. Colo.September 15, 1997No. 1:97-cv-01564Cited 3 times
RemandedCIGNA
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Alan B. Johnson
Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
442 Civil rights jobs
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
motion to dismiss

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

DiscriminationWrongful Termination

Outcome

The court denied the plaintiff's motion to remand the case to state court, holding that removal was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 because the federal court has original jurisdiction over the ADA claim, and concurrent state jurisdiction does not preclude federal removal.

What This Ruling Means

# Keil v. CIGNA & Intracorp Rehab Management ## What Happened Keil filed a lawsuit against CIGNA and Intracorp Rehab Management, claiming discrimination and wrongful termination. The case was originally filed in state court. Keil's employer moved to transfer the case to federal court, and Keil asked the federal court to send it back to state court. ## What the Court Decided The federal court denied Keil's request to return the case to state court. The court ruled that federal courts have the authority to hear this case because it involves a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a federal law. Once a federal question exists, federal courts have proper jurisdiction even if state laws also apply. ## Why This Matters for Workers This ruling clarifies that employment discrimination cases involving disability cannot automatically stay in state court just because other claims are included. Workers bringing ADA discrimination claims should understand that their cases may be heard in federal court, which has different rules and procedures than state courts. Both forums can address discrimination claims, but workers should be aware of which court system will handle their case.

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

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.