Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc.
54 distinct federal cases coded as employment matters from public court records (2010–2026)
2 trusted published court opinions across 2 distinct cases · 3 docket-only cases without a recorded end date
What public court records show
In public federal court records, Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. is named as a defendant in 54 federal cases coded as employment matters between 2010 and 2026.
Across 2 trusted published opinions analyzed, recorded claim types include Discrimination, Retaliation, and Hostile Work Environment.
The analyzed published opinions with a recorded state span 2 states, most often in AL.
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 2 distinct cases.
Jurisdictions represented in the analyzed opinions.
About this employer
Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. appears in 2 trusted published federal employment opinions. Recent written decisions on record:
Michael Fenske v. Fresenius USA Manufacturing, Inc. (2021) — Remanded. Michael Fenske sued his employer, Fresenius USA Manufacturing, claiming wage theft. Specifically, he alleged the company failed to provide legally required meal and rest breaks to workers. Read the ruling.
Jones v. Fresenius USA Manufacturing Inc (2021) — Mixed Result. Jones filed a lawsuit against Fresenius USA Manufacturing, claiming the company discriminated against her, retaliated against her for complaining, and created a hostile work environment so intolerable that she had to quit her job. Read the ruling.
Across 2 trusted published opinions analyzed, recorded claim types include Discrimination, Retaliation, Hostile Work Environment. Browse the linked claim hubs for other published opinions involving these claim types. Discrimination, Retaliation and Hostile Work Environment.
Published opinions span Alabama (1), California (1). Browse state-specific employment rulings for jurisdictional patterns. Alabama rulings and California rulings.
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 and docket; written opinions stay grouped inside their case. List captions may abbreviate names; public records and case details can identify the parties.
Other court records naming this party
1 published opinion names this party but is 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.
Other employers with published opinions
Browse trusted published opinions involving other employers.
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.