Skip to main content
Finance

Federal Reserve Bank of New York

42 distinct federal employment cases from public court records (19792025)

9 trusted published court opinions across 9 distinct cases · 3 docket-only cases without a recorded end date

What public court records show

Public federal court records list Federal Reserve Bank of New York as an employer in 42 distinct federal employment cases between 1979 and 2025.

Of the 9 trusted published opinions analyzed, the most common outcomes were: 3 ended in a ruling for the employer, 2 settled, 2 were dismissed, and 2 had a mixed result.

The most common claims on record were Discrimination, Wrongful Termination, and Breach Of Contract.

Cases were filed across 6 states, most often in 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.

9
Published Opinions Analyzed

Written decisions across 9 distinct cases.

6
States

Jurisdictions represented in the analyzed opinions.

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

About this employer

Federal Reserve Bank of New York appears in 9 trusted published federal employment opinions. Recent written decisions on record:

Hui v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York (2025) — Settlement. This case involved a discrimination lawsuit filed by an employee named Hui against the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The worker claimed they faced discrimination in their workplace, though the specific details of what type of discrimination occurred are not available from the court records provided. Read the ruling.

Poorfakhraei v. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (2022) — Dismissed. An employee at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis filed a lawsuit claiming they were wrongfully fired and treated unfairly because of discrimination. The employee also said the bank failed to make necessary accommodations for a medical condition, violating federal laws that protect workers with disabilities and thos… Read the ruling.

BERINI v. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (2006) — Defendant Win. This case involved an employee named Berini who worked at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis and claimed she faced age discrimination under federal law. She argued that her employer treated her unfairly because of her age, which would violate the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Read the ruling.

The published opinions primarily involve Discrimination (4 of 9), Wrongful Termination (2 of 9), Breach of Contract. Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Discrimination, Wrongful Termination and Breach of Contract.

Published opinions span New York (3), Missouri (2), Michigan (1), Tennessee (1). 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, Missouri rulings, Michigan rulings and Tennessee rulings.

These published opinions sit within the financial services sector, where Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank whistleblower protections often supplement standard Title VII claims.

Opinion Outcomes

Defendant Win
3 (33%)
Settlement
2 (22%)
Dismissed
2 (22%)
Mixed Result
2 (22%)

Opinion Stages

9 analyzed opinions have a classified procedural stage.

Appeal
3
Summary judgment
1

Of the 1 summary-judgment opinions, 1 ended the case in Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s favor and 0 let the worker’s claims continue.

Motion to dismiss
3
Settlement / consent decree
2
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.
Settlement / consent decree
The two sides resolved the dispute by agreement, sometimes with court approval. Most settlements are private and never show up in published opinions.

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 →

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

Employee v. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta
S.D.N.Y. · Oct 2025
Employee v. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco
W.D. Wash. · Sep 2025
Employee v. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston
D. Mass. · May 2025
Employee v. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
N.D. Tex. · Jan 2025
Docket closed
Employee v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York
S.D.N.Y. · Sep 2024 · New York · Discrimination
Settlement
Employee v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York
S.D.N.Y. · Apr 2024
Docket closed
Employee v. Federal Reserve Bank Of Chicago
N.D. Ill. · Nov 2023
Docket closed
Employee v. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis
D. Minn. · Apr 2023
Docket closed
Employee v. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis
D. Minn. · Apr 2023
Docket closed
Employee v. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis
D. Minn. · Apr 2023
Docket closed
Employee v. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
E.D. Mo. · Dec 2022 · Missouri · Wrongful Termination
Dismissed
Employee v. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
N.D. Tex. · Oct 2022
Docket closed
Employee v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York
S.D.N.Y. · Oct 2021 · New York
Settlement
Employee v. Federal Reserve Bank an Federal Reserve Chairman
D.D.C. · Jul 2021 · District of Columbia · Negligence
Dismissed
Employee v. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston
D. Mass. · Sep 2020
Docket closed
Employee v. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
N.D. Tex. · Mar 2020
Docket closed
Employee v. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston
D. Mass. · Feb 2020
Docket closed
Employee v. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
E.D. Mo. · Jun 2019
Docket closed
Employee v. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta
N.D. Ga. · Feb 2019
Docket closed
Employee v. Federal Reserve Bank of New York
S.D.N.Y. · Nov 2018
Docket closed
Employee v. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis
E.D. Mo. · Jun 2018
Docket closed
Employee v. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago
N.D. Ill. · Jun 2018
Docket closed
Employee v. The Federal Reserve Bank of New York
S.D.N.Y. · Nov 2017
Docket closed
Employee v. Federal Reserve Bank Of Chicago
N.D. Ill. · Oct 2017
Docket closed
Employee v. Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis
D. Minn. · Aug 2017
Docket closed
Showing 25 of 42

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.