Geisinger Medical Center
27 distinct federal employment cases from public court records (2014–2025)
3 trusted published court opinions across 3 distinct cases · 5 docket-only cases without a recorded end date
What public court records show
Public federal court records list Geisinger Medical Center as an employer in 27 distinct federal employment cases between 2014 and 2025.
The most common claims on record were Discrimination, Retaliation, and Failure To Accommodate.
Cases were filed across 1 state (PA).
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 3 distinct cases.
Jurisdictions represented in the analyzed opinions.
About this employer
Geisinger Medical Center appears in 3 trusted published federal employment opinions. Recent written decisions on record:
Vrabec v. Geisinger Clinic (2025) — Defendant Win. An employee at Geisinger Clinic filed a lawsuit claiming the hospital discriminated against them, retaliated against them, and failed to pay them fairly. The employee asked the court to allow them to add new information to their case and reopen the discovery process (where both sides exchange documents and evidence). Read the ruling.
Steed v. Geisinger Health (2025) — Defendant Win. This case involved John Kapoor, the former CEO of Insys Therapeutics, who was criminally convicted of racketeering conspiracy. After his conviction, the company had paid nearly $6 million to cover his legal defense costs. The question was whether Kapoor had to pay this money back to the company. Read the ruling.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. GEISINGER HEALTH (2022) — Mixed Result. 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 Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania 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. Pennsylvania rulings.
These published opinions sit within the healthcare sector, where employment disputes commonly involve HIPAA-adjacent retaliation, nursing-license issues, and accommodations under the ADA.
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 Healthcare 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.