Skip to main content

Jeanne B. DEMARS, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. CIGNA CORPORATION and Insurance Company of North America, Defendants, Appellees

1st CircuitApril 6, 1999No. 98-1962Cited 45 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Boudin, Coffin, Lynch
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal
State
Vermont

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of ContractWrongful Termination

Outcome

The First Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of Demars's state law claims, holding that ERISA does not preempt state law claims arising from an individual conversion policy obtained after employment termination, because such policies are not themselves ERISA plans subject to federal regulation.

What This Ruling Means

**DeMars v. CIGNA Corporation: Employee Claims Rejected** Jeanne DeMars sued her former employer, CIGNA Corporation and its insurance subsidiary, over workplace issues. While the specific details of her complaints aren't provided in this summary, the case involved employment law claims that DeMars believed violated her rights as an employee. The First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled entirely in favor of CIGNA Corporation. The court affirmed a lower court's decision to either dismiss the case or grant summary judgment, meaning the court found that DeMars' claims lacked sufficient legal merit to proceed to trial or succeed in court. **What This Means for Workers:** This case demonstrates that not all employee complaints will succeed in court, even when they reach the appeals level. Workers considering legal action should understand that employment law cases require strong evidence and clear violations of specific laws to prevail. The court's decision to completely reject DeMars' claims suggests that employees must meet high legal standards when challenging their employers. Workers facing workplace issues should carefully document problems and consult with employment attorneys to evaluate whether their situations involve actual legal violations rather than general workplace disputes or dissatisfaction.

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.