Greyhound Lines, Inc.
34 distinct federal employment cases from public court records (1979–2025)
3 trusted published court opinions across 3 distinct cases · 2 docket-only cases without a recorded end date
What public court records show
Public federal court records list Greyhound Lines, Inc. as an employer in 34 distinct federal employment cases between 1979 and 2025.
The most common claims on record were Discrimination.
Cases were filed across 3 states, most often in 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
Greyhound Lines, Inc. appears in 3 trusted published federal employment opinions. Recent written decisions on record:
Stembridge v. Greyhound Lines Inc. (2025) — Remanded. Stembridge filed a disability discrimination complaint against Greyhound Lines Inc. in a New York court. The case involved an incident where Stembridge allegedly experienced discriminatory treatment related to a disability. Read the ruling.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Greyhound Lines, Inc. (1979) — Plaintiff Win. Greyhound Lines had a company policy requiring all employees to be clean-shaven. Jeffrey Ferguson, a black employee, challenged this rule because he suffered from pseudofolliculitis barbae (PFB)—a skin condition that causes painful razor bumps, primarily affecting black men. Read the ruling.
The published opinion involves a discrimination claim. Browse other discrimination rulings for comparable fact patterns and how courts have ruled. Discrimination.
Published opinions span Pennsylvania (1), California (1), New York (1). 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, California rulings and New York rulings.
These published opinions sit within the transportation sector, where USERRA, FMLA, and DOT safety-retaliation claims appear alongside standard discrimination claims.
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+docket case · written opinions stay grouped inside their case · plaintiff names redacted
Other Transportation & Logistics 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.