Dignity Health
14 distinct federal employment cases from public court records (2013–2023)
4 trusted published court opinions across 4 distinct cases
What public court records show
Public federal court records list Dignity Health as an employer in 14 distinct federal employment cases between 2013 and 2023.
The most common claims on record were Discrimination, Breach Of Contract, and Wage Theft.
Cases were filed across 2 states, most often in AZ.
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 4 distinct cases.
Jurisdictions represented in the analyzed opinions.
About this employer
Dignity Health appears in 4 trusted published federal employment opinions. Recent written decisions on record:
Thompson v. Dignity Health (2021) — Mixed Result. Thompson worked for Dignity Health and filed a lawsuit claiming the company made false statements about him (defamation), discriminated against him, and broke their employment contract. Read the ruling.
Darling v. Dignity Health (2021) — Mixed Result. An employee named Darling filed a lawsuit against Dignity Health, a healthcare organization, claiming the company violated federal wage and hour laws under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Read the ruling.
Siegel v. Dignity Health (2020) — Plaintiff Win. Mitchell and Dawn Siegel, employees of Dignity Health, filed a lawsuit claiming their employer discriminated against them based on disability and failed to make necessary workplace accommodations. The case went to trial, where a jury heard evidence from both sides. Read the ruling.
The published opinions primarily involve Discrimination, Breach of Contract, Wage Theft. Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Discrimination, Breach of Contract and Wage Theft.
Published opinions span Arizona (2), California (2). Arizona 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. Arizona rulings and California 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.