Skip to main content

CoreCivic, Inc.

60 federal employment cases from public court records (20002025)

18 with a published ruling · 42 open dockets

What public court records show

Public federal court records list CoreCivic, Inc. as an employer in 60 employment matters between 2000 and 2025.

Of the 17 matters with a recorded outcome, the most common were: 8 ended in a ruling for the employer, 6 were dismissed, 2 were sent back to a lower court, and 1 had a mixed result.

Workers obtained a favorable ruling in about 0% of matters with a recorded outcome.

The most common claims on record were Wrongful Termination, Retaliation, and Failure To Accommodate.

Cases were filed across 4 states, most often in CA.

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.

60
Federal Cases
0%
Plaintiff Win Rate

Does not imply wrongdoing — many cases are dismissed or resolved without findings of liability.

4
States
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

About this employer

CoreCivic, Inc. appears in 17 federal employment-law court rulings on record. These cases sit within the broader workplace context. The set below covers rulings that produced written federal-court decisions; private settlements, EEOC charges resolved without litigation, and state-court cases are not included.

The cases primarily involve Wrongful Termination (5 of 17), Retaliation (4 of 17), Failure to Accommodate (4 of 17). Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Wrongful Termination, Retaliation and Failure to Accommodate.

Applicable statutes referenced across these rulings include: NLRA (29 U.S.C. §§ 151-169) — The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) protects the rights of employees to organize, form or join labor unions, bargain collectively through representatives of their choosing, and engage in other concerted activities for mutual aid or protection. See the NLRA reference page for filing deadlines, employee thresholds, and remedies. NLRA.

Rulings span California (5), New York (3), Arizona (2), Georgia (1). California 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. California rulings, New York rulings, Arizona rulings and Georgia rulings.

Case Outcomes

Defendant Win
8 (47%)
Dismissed
6 (35%)
Remanded
2 (12%)
Mixed Result
1 (6%)

Case Stages

The stage at which courts issued CoreCivic, Inc.’s 17 stage-identified rulings.

Appeal
8 (47%)
Summary judgment
1 (6%)

Of the 1 summary-judgment rulings, 1 ended the case in CoreCivic, Inc.’s favor and 0 let the worker’s claims continue.

Motion to dismiss
8 (47%)
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.

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 →

Federal cases

public court records

One row per case · a badge means the case reached a published ruling · plaintiff names redacted

Employee v. CoreCivic, Inc.
S.D.N.Y. · Oct 2025 · New York
Dismissed
Employee v. CoreCivic of Tennessee, LLC
M.D. Fla. · Sep 2025
Open docket
Employee v. CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE LLC
N.D. Fla. · Sep 2025
Open docket
American Heart Technologies, LLC v. Employee
C.D. Cal. · Aug 2025 · California · Retaliation
Defendant Win
Employee v. CORECIVIC OF TENNESSEE, LLC d/b/a CORECIVIC DETENTION FACILITY LECANTO FLORIDA
M.D. Fla. · Aug 2025
Open docket
Employee v. CoreCivic of Tennessee, LLC
N.D. Ohio · Feb 2025
Open docket
Employee v. The City of New York
S.D.N.Y. · Dec 2024 · New York · Failure to Accommodate
Remanded
Employee v. Square Food & Cafe Inc.
S.D.N.Y. · Dec 2024 · New York · Failure to Accommodate
Dismissed
Employee v. CoreCivic of Tennessee, LLC
N.D. Ohio · Nov 2024
Open docket
Employee v. CoreCivic, Inc.
W.D.N.Y. · Nov 2024
Open docket
Employee v. CoreCivic, Inc.
E.D. Cal. · Sep 2024
Open docket
Employee v. CoreCivic of Tennessee, LLC
M.D. Tenn. · Jun 2024
Open docket
Employee v. CoreCivic, Inc.
S.D. Cal. · Mar 2024
Open docket
Employee v. CoreCivic of Tennessee, LLC
M.D. Tenn. · Feb 2024
Open docket
Employee v. CoreCivic of Tennessee, LLC
N.D. Ohio · Dec 2023
Open docket
Employee v. CoreCivic, Inc.
S.D. Cal. · Sep 2023 · California · Wage Theft
Open docket
Employee v. CoreCivic, Inc.
D. Kan. · May 2023
Open docket
Employee v. CORECIVIC INC
M.D. Ga. · Mar 2023 · Georgia · Discrimination
Dismissed
Employee v. CoreCivic of Tennessee, LLC
D.N.M. · Mar 2023
Open docket
Employee v. CoreCivic, Inc.
W.D. Tex. · Jan 2023
Open docket
Employee v. CoreCivic of Tennessee, LLC
N.D. Ohio · Jan 2023
Open docket
Employee v. International Union, Security, Police and Fire Professionals of America
D. Ariz. · Sep 2022 · Arizona
Remanded
Employee v. CoreCivic of Tennessee, LLC
S.D. Cal. · May 2022 · California · Discrimination
Defendant Win
Employee v. International Union, Security, Police and Fire Professionals of America
D. Ariz. · Feb 2022 · Arizona
Defendant Win
Employee v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America
S.D. Cal. · Dec 2021 · California · Wrongful Termination
Dismissed
Showing 25 of 60

Understand your employment rights

Free, private, no sign-up required.

Check My Rights

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.