Holder
17 distinct federal employment cases from public court records (2009–2019)
16 trusted published court opinions across 16 distinct cases
What public court records show
Public federal court records list Holder as an employer in 17 distinct federal employment cases between 2009 and 2019.
Of the 16 trusted published opinions analyzed, the most common outcomes were: 10 ended in a ruling for the employer and 6 were dismissed.
Plaintiffs won 0 of 16 adjudicated opinions (0%).
The most common claims on record were Discrimination.
Cases were filed across 2 states, most often in VA.
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 16 distinct cases.
0 of 16 adjudicated opinions ended in a plaintiff win.
Does not imply wrongdoing — many cases are dismissed or resolved without findings of liability.
Jurisdictions represented in the analyzed opinions.
About this employer
Holder appears in 16 trusted published federal employment opinions. The most recent written decision on record:
Olsen v. Holder (2009) — Dismissed. This case involved a worker named Olsen who filed a discrimination lawsuit against Holder (likely a government official). Olsen brought the case to a district court, claiming workplace discrimination. 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 Virginia (1), Iowa (1). Virginia 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. Virginia rulings and Iowa rulings.
These published opinions sit within the public sector, where due-process protections, First Amendment retaliation, and union-related (NLRA / state PERB) claims apply.
Opinion Outcomes
Opinion Stages
16 analyzed opinions have a classified procedural stage.
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.
- Motion to dismiss
- An early request — usually by the employer — to throw the case out before any evidence is gathered.
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 →
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 Government & Public Sector 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.