Bi-State Development Agency of the Missouri-Illinois Metropolitan District
5 distinct federal employment cases from public court records (2013–2023)
3 trusted published court opinions across 3 distinct cases
What public court records show
Public federal court records list Bi-State Development Agency of the Missouri-Illinois Metropolitan District as an employer in 5 distinct federal employment cases between 2013 and 2023.
The most common claims on record were Workers Compensation, Discrimination, and Hostile Work Environment.
Cases were filed across 2 states, most often in MO.
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 3 distinct cases.
Jurisdictions represented in the analyzed opinions.
About this employer
Bi-State Development Agency of the Missouri-Illinois Metropolitan District appears in 3 trusted published federal employment opinions. Recent written decisions on record:
Martinez v. First Class Interiors of Naples, LLC (2020) — Defendant Win. This case involved a worker who was injured in an accident and sought workers' compensation benefits from her employer, Bi-State Development Agency. The employee argued that she should receive benefits because the accident was work-related. Read the ruling.
Harris-Williams v. Illinois Workers Compensation Comm'n (2019) — Defendant Win. This case involved a dispute over a workers' compensation claim. An employee named Harris-Williams disagreed with a decision made by the Illinois Workers Compensation Commission about their claim and decided to appeal the ruling to a higher court. Read the ruling.
Eartha McMiller v. Metro (2013) — Mixed Result. Eartha McMiller filed an employment lawsuit against her employer, Metro, in 2013. While the specific details of her complaints aren't provided in the available information, the case involved employment law issues that McMiller believed violated her workplace rights. Read the ruling.
The published opinions primarily involve Workers’ Compensation, Discrimination, Hostile Work Environment. Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Workers’ Compensation, Discrimination and Hostile Work Environment.
Published opinions span Missouri (1), Tennessee (1). Missouri 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. Missouri rulings and Tennessee rulings.
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 employers with published opinions
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.