Johnson Controls, Inc.
59 distinct federal cases coded as employment matters from public court records (2010–2025)
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, Johnson Controls, Inc. is named as a defendant in 59 federal cases coded as employment matters between 2010 and 2025.
The most common claims on record were Wage Theft, Discrimination, and Retaliation.
Cases were filed across 2 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 2 distinct cases.
Jurisdictions represented in the analyzed opinions.
About this employer
Johnson Controls, Inc. appears in 2 trusted published federal employment opinions. Recent written decisions on record:
Titus v. Johnson Controls, Inc. (2024) — Defendant Win. Titus filed a lawsuit against Johnson Controls, Inc., claiming the company discriminated against him based on race and age, and then fired him in retaliation for complaining about that treatment. Read the ruling.
Lubinski v. Johnson Controls, Inc. (2024) — Plaintiff Win. Employees at Johnson Controls, Inc. sued their employer, claiming the company violated New York wage laws. Specifically, they alleged the company failed to provide accurate wage statements and failed to properly notify workers about their pay rates and paydays. Read the ruling.
The published opinions primarily involve Wage Theft, Discrimination, Retaliation. Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Wage Theft, Discrimination and Retaliation.
Published opinions span New York (1), Connecticut (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 and Connecticut rulings.
These published opinions sit within the manufacturing sector, where OSHA whistleblower, FMLA, and disability-accommodation claims are most common.
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 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.