Fluor Enterprises, Inc.
19 distinct federal employment cases from public court records (2003–2025)
4 trusted published court opinions across 4 distinct cases · 1 docket-only case without a recorded end date
What public court records show
Public federal court records list Fluor Enterprises, Inc. as an employer in 19 distinct federal employment cases between 2003 and 2025.
The most common claims on record were Retaliation, Discrimination, and Wage Theft.
Cases were filed across 1 state (SC).
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
Fluor Enterprises, Inc. appears in 4 trusted published federal employment opinions. Recent written decisions on record:
Harry Pennington, III v. Fluor Enterprises, Inc. (2021) — Defendant Win. Harry Pennington III sued Fluor Enterprises over wage-related claims, arguing the company violated federal employment laws when it failed to provide proper notice before significant workplace changes. Read the ruling.
Fluor Daniel, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board (2005) — Defendant Win. This case involved a labor dispute between Fluor Daniel, Inc., a construction and engineering company, and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The company challenged an NLRB ruling that found the employer had violated workers' rights under federal labor law. Read the ruling.
Fluor Daniel, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board (2003) — Mixed Result. Fluor Daniel, a construction company, refused to hire 119 job applicants because they were affiliated with a labor union. The company appeared to discriminate against workers based on their union membership when filling available positions. Read the ruling.
The published opinions primarily involve Retaliation, Discrimination, Wage Theft. Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Retaliation, Discrimination and Wage Theft.
Published opinions span South Carolina. South Carolina 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. South Carolina rulings.
These published opinions sit within the construction sector, where OSHA retaliation, prevailing-wage disputes, and joint-employer issues are common.
Claim Types
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 recordsOne row per court+docket case · written opinions stay grouped inside their case · plaintiff names redacted
Other Construction 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.