Skip to main content
Manufacturing

Eastman Kodak Co.

2 distinct federal cases coded as employment matters from public court records (1996–2005)

2 trusted published court opinions across 2 distinct cases

What public court records show

In public federal court records, Eastman Kodak Co. is named as a defendant in 2 federal cases coded as employment matters between 1996 and 2005.

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

Cases were filed across 1 state (NY).

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.

2
Published Opinions Analyzed

Written decisions across 2 distinct cases.

1
State

Jurisdictions represented in the analyzed opinions.

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

About this employer

Eastman Kodak Co. appears in 2 trusted published federal employment opinions. Recent written decisions on record:

Employees Committed for Justice v. Eastman Kodak Co. (2005) — Dismissed. A group of Eastman Kodak Company employees filed a lawsuit claiming they faced discrimination, retaliation, and a hostile work environment at their workplace. The employees argued that these problems were part of a widespread pattern throughout the company, not just isolated incidents affecting individual workers. Read the ruling.

Kotlowski v. Eastman Kodak Co. (1996) — Defendant Win. Read the ruling.

The published opinions primarily involve Discrimination, Retaliation, Failure to Accommodate. Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Discrimination, Retaliation and Failure to Accommodate.

Published opinions span New York. New York 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. New York rulings.

These published opinions sit within the manufacturing sector, where OSHA whistleblower, FMLA, and disability-accommodation claims are most common.

States

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 records

One row per court+docket case · written opinions stay grouped inside their case · plaintiff names redacted

Showing 2 of 2

Other court records naming this party

2 published opinions name this party but are not coded with an employment claim. Some are labor, unemployment or workers’ compensation matters whose claim type was not recorded; others are not employment disputes at all. They are not counted in any figure on this page, and no outcome is shown for them.

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.