DuPont
17 distinct federal employment cases from public court records (1978–2025)
13 trusted published court opinions across 12 distinct cases · 1 docket-only case without a recorded end date
What public court records show
Public federal court records list DuPont as an employer in 17 distinct federal employment cases between 1978 and 2025.
Of the 13 trusted published opinions analyzed, the most common outcomes were: 5 had a mixed result, 4 ended in a ruling for the worker, and 4 ended in a ruling for the employer.
Plaintiffs won 4 of 13 adjudicated opinions (31%).
The most common claims on record were Discrimination, Failure To Accommodate, and Breach Of Contract.
Cases were filed across 5 states, most often in LA.
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 12 distinct cases.
4 of 13 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
DuPont appears in 13 trusted published federal employment opinions. Recent written decisions on record:
DuPont Specialty Products USA v. NLRB (2021) — Defendant Win. DuPont Specialty Products wanted to move its Emergency Response Team's work to an outside contractor. The company did not discuss this decision with the union that represented these workers beforehand. Read the ruling.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. (2007) — Mixed Result. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued chemical company DuPont over claims that the company discriminated against employees in their workplace. The EEOC, which is the federal agency responsible for enforcing anti-discrimination laws, argued that DuPont violated employment discrimination protections. Read the ruling.
Neoprene Craftsmen Union Local 788 v. National Labor Relations Board (2006) — Defendant Win. This case involved a dispute between Neoprene Craftsmen Union Local 788 and their employer, DuPont Dow Elastomers. The union had previously won a case against the company for unfair labor practices. Read the ruling.
The published opinions primarily involve Discrimination (4 of 13), Failure to Accommodate (4 of 13), Breach of Contract (4 of 13). Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Discrimination, Failure to Accommodate and Breach of Contract.
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.
Published opinions span Louisiana (3), Delaware (2), Michigan (1), Virginia (1). Browse state-specific employment rulings for jurisdictional patterns. Louisiana rulings, Delaware rulings, Michigan rulings and Virginia rulings.
These published opinions sit within the manufacturing sector, where OSHA whistleblower, FMLA, and disability-accommodation claims are most common.
Opinion Outcomes
Opinion Stages
13 analyzed opinions have a classified procedural stage.
Of the 3 summary-judgment opinions, 0 ended the case in DuPont’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.
- Trial verdict
- A judge or jury heard the evidence and reached a decision. Relatively few disputes get this far.
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 Manufacturing 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.