Skip to main content

Soshinsky v. First Unum Life Insurance

N.D.N.Y.July 5, 2000No. 5:98-cv-00385
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Mordue
Nature of Suit — the legal category of the dispute
440 Civil rights other
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
summary judgment

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

DiscriminationFailure to Accommodate

Outcome

The court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment, holding that Title III of the ADA does not prohibit insurance companies from providing differential disability benefits for mental versus physical disabilities.

What This Ruling Means

**Soshinsky v. First Unum Life Insurance: What It Means for Workers** This case involved an employee who challenged First Unum Life Insurance Company's disability benefits policy. The worker claimed the insurance company discriminated against people with mental health conditions by providing lower disability benefits for mental illnesses compared to physical disabilities. The employee argued this violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and that the company failed to provide reasonable accommodations. The court ruled in favor of First Unum, granting summary judgment for the insurance company. The judge determined that Title III of the ADA does not prevent insurance companies from offering different benefit amounts for mental health disabilities versus physical disabilities. Essentially, the court found that insurance companies can legally structure their policies to pay less for mental health conditions. This ruling matters for workers because it clarifies that disability insurance policies can treat mental and physical health conditions differently without violating federal disability rights laws. Workers should carefully review their disability insurance benefits to understand what coverage they have for different types of conditions. If you have concerns about mental health coverage, consider reviewing your policy details or exploring additional coverage options through your employer or independently.

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

Similar Rulings

Vega
2nd CircuitSep 2015
Remanded
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School and St. Francis Xavier Church
D.C. CircuitJul 1997
Remanded
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board
U.S. Supreme CourtApr 1941
Plaintiff Win
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
Coleman
7th CircuitJun 2017
Remanded

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.