DaVita Healthcare Partners, Inc.
89 distinct federal employment cases from public court records (2007–2026)
4 trusted published court opinions across 3 distinct cases · 3 docket-only cases without a recorded end date
What public court records show
Public federal court records list DaVita Healthcare Partners, Inc. as an employer in 89 distinct federal employment cases between 2007 and 2026.
The most common claims on record were Discrimination, Retaliation, and Wage Theft.
Cases were filed across 2 states, most often in CO.
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
DaVita Healthcare Partners, Inc. appears in 4 trusted published federal employment opinions. Recent written decisions on record:
GRASTY v. DAVITA, INC. D/B/A DAVITA SOUTH BROAD STREET DIALYSIS (2024) — Mixed Result. Grasty worked at a DaVita dialysis center and filed a lawsuit claiming the employer discriminated against her because of a disability, failed to provide necessary workplace accommodations, and retaliated against her for complaining about these issues. Read the ruling.
Bowling v. DaVita, Inc. (2023) — Mixed Result. An employee named Bowling sued DaVita, Inc., a healthcare company, claiming the company did not pay workers properly. The case involved allegations of wage theft—meaning employees were not paid the full wages they earned. Read the ruling.
Bowling v. DaVita, Inc. (2023) — Defendant Win. A worker named Bowling sued DaVita, Inc., claiming the company committed wage theft—meaning the employer failed to properly pay wages owed. The worker tried to add new claims to the lawsuit after the court's deadline for submitting case materials had already passed. Read the ruling.
The published opinions primarily involve Discrimination, Retaliation, Wage Theft. Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Discrimination, Retaliation and Wage Theft.
Published opinions span Colorado (2), Pennsylvania (1). Colorado 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. Colorado rulings and Pennsylvania 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.
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.