Abbott Laboratories
67 distinct federal cases coded as employment matters from public court records (1998–2026)
53 trusted published court opinions across 47 distinct cases · 5 docket-only cases without a recorded end date
What public court records show
In public federal court records, Abbott Laboratories is named as a defendant in 67 federal cases coded as employment matters between 1998 and 2026.
Of the 53 trusted published opinions analyzed, the most common outcomes were: 26 ended in a ruling for the employer, 12 had a mixed result, 8 ended in a ruling for the worker, and 4 were dismissed.
Plaintiffs won 8 of 50 adjudicated opinions (16%).
The most common claims on record were Discrimination, Retaliation, and Wrongful Termination.
Cases were filed across 10 states, most often in IL.
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 47 distinct cases.
8 of 50 adjudicated opinions ended in a plaintiff win.
Does not imply wrongdoing — many cases are dismissed or resolved without findings of liability.
Jurisdictions represented in the analyzed opinions.
About this employer
Abbott Laboratories appears in 53 trusted published federal employment opinions. Recent written decisions on record:
Angela Standlee v. Abbott Laboratories (2025) — Remanded. Angela Standlee sued her employer, Abbott Laboratories, claiming she faced workplace discrimination. The case was filed in federal court in California's Central District in May 2025, though the specific details about what type of discrimination Standlee alleged are not provided in the available information. Read the ruling.
Rose v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. (2025) — Dismissed. Rose filed a lawsuit against Abbott Laboratories claiming the company discriminated against her, wrongfully fired her, and created a hostile work environment. The case was originally filed in the Ohio Northern District Court. Read the ruling.
Beverly v. Abbott Laboratories (2023) — Defendant Win. Read the ruling.
The published opinions primarily involve Discrimination (35 of 53), Retaliation (31 of 53), Wrongful Termination (17 of 53). Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Discrimination, Retaliation and Wrongful Termination.
Published opinions span Illinois (14), Ohio (3), New York (2). Illinois 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. Illinois rulings, Ohio rulings and New York rulings.
These published opinions sit within the healthcare sector, where employment disputes commonly involve HIPAA-adjacent retaliation, nursing-license issues, and accommodations under the ADA.
Opinion Outcomes
Opinion Stages
53 analyzed opinions have a classified procedural stage.
Of the 17 summary-judgment opinions, 11 ended the case in Abbott Laboratories’s favor and 6 let the worker’s claims continue.
What do these stages mean?
- Appeal
- A higher court reviewing an earlier decision. Many published opinions come from this stage, after a lot has already happened in the case.
- Summary judgment
- A ruling where the judge decides the case — or part of it — without a trial, because one side argues the key facts are not in dispute. For workers, getting past this step is often the biggest hurdle.
- Motion to dismiss
- An early request — usually by the employer — to throw the case out before any evidence is gathered.
- Trial verdict
- A judge or jury heard the evidence and reached a decision. Relatively few disputes get this far.
- Other rulings
- Procedural decisions and orders that do not fit the main stages above.
Published federal-court opinions only — most workplace disputes are resolved privately. This is not anyone’s odds, and not a finding that any employer violated the law.
Facing something similar? Check your rights →
Claim Types
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 court records naming this party
34 published opinions name this party but are not coded with an employment claim. Some are labor, unemployment or workers’ compensation matters whose claim type was not recorded; others are not employment disputes at all. They are not counted in any figure on this page, and no outcome is shown for them.
- Employee v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc.Ill. App. Ct. · 2025
- Employee v. Abbott LaboratoriesN.D. Cal. · 2025 · California
- Employee v. Abbott Laboratories7th Circuit · 2024
- Employee v. Abbott Laboratories7th Circuit · 2024
- Employee v. Abbott Laboratories7th Circuit · 2022
- Employee v. Abbott Laboratories2nd Circuit · 2018
- Employee v. Abbott Laboratories, Incorpora7th Circuit · 2017
- Employee v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc.Mo. Ct. App. · 2016
- Employee v. Abbott Laboratories & AbbVie Inc.N.D. Ill. · 2016 · Illinois
- Smithkline Beecham Corporation v. Employee9th Circuit · 2014
- Employee v. Abbott Laboratories7th Circuit · 2012
- Employee v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc.S.D. Fla. · 2011 · Florida
- Employee v. Abbott Severance Pay Plan for Employees of Kos Pharmaceuticals6th Circuit · 2010
- Employee v. Abbott Labortories9th Circuit · 2009
- Birmingham Associates Ltd. v. Employee2nd Circuit · 2009
- Birmingham Associates Ltd. v. Employee2nd Circuit · 2009
- Employee v. Sandoz, Inc.Federal Circuit · 2008
- BIRMINGHAM ASSOCIATES LTD. v. EmployeeS.D.N.Y. · 2008 · New York
- Employee v. v. Abbott LaboratoriesFederal Circuit · 2008
- Employee v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc.W.D. Wis. · 2007 · Wisconsin
- John Hancock Life Insurance Company John Hancock Variable Life Insurance Company and Investors Partner Life Insurance Company v. Employee1st Circuit · 2006
- Employee v. Abbott Laboratories7th Circuit · 2006
- Employee v. Abbott Laboratories7th Circuit · 2006
- Employee v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc.Tex. App.—5th Dist. · 2006
- Employee v. Abbott Laboratories9th Circuit · 2005
- Employee v. Abbott Laboratories Inc.9th Circuit · 2005
- State of Wisconsin v. Abbott LaboratoriesW.D. Wis. · 2005 · Wisconsin
- Employee v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INC.1st Circuit · 2005
- Employee v. Abbott LaboratoriesIll. App. Ct. · 2004
- Employee v. Abbott LaboratoriesN.C. Ct. App. · 2003
- Employee v. Abbott Laboratories, and Tokyo Tanabe Company, Ltd.Federal Circuit · 2003
- Employee v. Abbott Laboratories7th Circuit · 2002
- Employee v. Abbott Laboratories7th Circuit · 2001
- Employee v. Abbott Laboratories and Miles D. White7th Circuit · 2001
Other employers with published opinions
Browse trusted published opinions involving other employers.
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.