BAYADA Home Health Care, Inc.
24 distinct federal employment cases from public court records (2004–2025)
23 trusted published court opinions across 17 distinct cases · 2 docket-only cases without a recorded end date
What public court records show
Public federal court records list BAYADA Home Health Care, Inc. as an employer in 24 distinct federal employment cases between 2004 and 2025.
Of the 23 trusted published opinions analyzed, the most common outcomes were: 10 ended in a ruling for the employer, 7 had a mixed result, 3 ended in a ruling for the worker, and 2 settled.
Plaintiffs won 3 of 21 adjudicated opinions (14%).
The most common claims on record were Wage Theft, Wrongful Termination, and Whistleblower.
Cases were filed across 3 states, most often in NJ.
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 17 distinct cases.
3 of 21 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
BAYADA Home Health Care, Inc. appears in 23 trusted published federal employment opinions. Recent written decisions on record:
Shaw-Hicks v. Bayada Home Health Care (2025) — Defendant Win. This case involved a dispute between an employee named Shaw-Hicks and Bayada Home Health Care, a healthcare company that provides home-based medical services. The specific details of what triggered the employment law conflict are not available from the court records provided. Read the ruling.
Bayada Home Healthcare v. Shaw-Hicks (2024) — Mixed Result. This case involved a workplace dispute between Bayada Home Healthcare, a healthcare services company, and an employee named Shaw-Hicks. The specific details of what happened between the employer and worker are not available from the court records provided. Read the ruling.
FREEDMAN v. BAYADA HOME HEALTH CARE, INC. (2024) — Settlement. This case involved a whistleblower lawsuit against Bayada Home Health Care, a company that provides home healthcare services. An employee (Freedman) filed a "qui tam" lawsuit under the False Claims Act, claiming the company was defrauding the government. Read the ruling.
The published opinions primarily involve Wage Theft (10 of 23), Wrongful Termination (6 of 23), Whistleblower (3 of 23). Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Wage Theft, Wrongful Termination and Whistleblower.
Applicable statutes referenced across these rulings include: ADA (42 U.S.C. §§ 12111-12117) — The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in all aspects of employment. See the ADA reference page for filing deadlines, employee thresholds, and remedies. ADA.
Published opinions span New Jersey (9), Pennsylvania (4), Colorado (1). New Jersey 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. New Jersey rulings, Pennsylvania rulings and Colorado 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
23 analyzed opinions have a classified procedural stage.
Of the 5 summary-judgment opinions, 2 ended the case in BAYADA Home Health Care, Inc.’s favor and 3 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.
- Settlement / consent decree
- The two sides resolved the dispute by agreement, sometimes with court approval. Most settlements are private and never show up in published opinions.
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 Healthcare employers
Browse trusted published opinions involving similar workplaces.
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.