International Business Machines Corporation
31 distinct federal employment cases from public court records (2000–2026)
31 trusted published court opinions analyzed; 29 map to 25 distinct cases
What public court records show
Public federal court records list International Business Machines Corporation as an employer in 31 distinct federal employment cases between 2000 and 2026.
Of the 31 trusted published opinions analyzed, the most common outcomes were: 13 ended in a ruling for the employer, 9 had a mixed result, 4 ended in a ruling for the worker, and 3 were sent back to a lower court.
Plaintiffs won 4 of 28 adjudicated opinions (14%).
The most common claims on record were Breach Of Contract, Discrimination, and Retaliation.
Cases were filed across 7 states, most often in NY.
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 25 distinct cases.
4 of 28 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
International Business Machines Corporation appears in 31 trusted published federal employment opinions. Recent written decisions on record:
United States v. Gonzalez-Reyes (2026) — Defendant Win. Workers filed a lawsuit claiming they faced age discrimination and retaliation when IBM and its spinoff company Kyndryl fired them. The workers wanted to combine their cases into one lawsuit, arguing their situations were similar enough to be heard together. Read the ruling.
McNeil v. International Business MacHines Corp. (2023) — Defendant Win. McNeil worked for IBM and believed he was wrongfully fired based on his age, a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. He filed a dispute through IBM's arbitration process, which requires employees to resolve workplace conflicts through a private arbitrator rather than court. Read the ruling.
Stafford v. Int'l Bus. MacHs. Corp. (2023) — Mixed Result. Stafford filed a discrimination claim against IBM and pursued the case through arbitration—a private dispute resolution process rather than public court. Stafford won the case and received a financial award. Read the ruling.
The published opinions primarily involve Breach of Contract (9 of 31), Discrimination (8 of 31), Retaliation (5 of 31). Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Breach of Contract, Discrimination and Retaliation.
Published opinions span New York (12), California (3), Washington (2), Colorado (1). New York 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. New York rulings, California rulings, Washington rulings and Colorado rulings.
These published opinions sit within the technology sector, where age-discrimination, non-compete, and whistleblower-retaliation claims appear frequently.
Opinion Outcomes
Opinion Stages
30 analyzed opinions have a classified procedural stage.
Of the 7 summary-judgment opinions, 3 ended the case in International Business Machines Corporation’s favor and 4 let the worker’s claims continue.
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.
- Summary judgment
- A ruling where the judge decides the case — or part of it — without a trial, because one side argues the key facts are not in dispute. For workers, getting past this step is often the biggest hurdle.
- Motion to dismiss
- An early request — usually by the employer — to throw the case out before any evidence is gathered.
- Default judgment
- A decision entered because one side did not respond to the case at all.
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 Technology 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.