Landmark Credit Union
4 distinct federal employment cases from public court records (2010–2025)
4 trusted published court opinions across 4 distinct cases
What public court records show
Public federal court records list Landmark Credit Union as an employer in 4 distinct federal employment cases between 2010 and 2025.
The most common claims on record were Wage Theft, Breach Of Contract, and Discrimination.
Cases were filed across 1 state (WI).
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 4 distinct cases.
Jurisdictions represented in the analyzed opinions.
About this employer
Landmark Credit Union appears in 4 trusted published federal employment opinions. Recent written decisions on record:
Landmark Credit Union v. Ralph W. Streuly (2025) — Mixed Result. This case involved an employment dispute between Landmark Credit Union and Ralph W. Streuly, heard by a Wisconsin appeals court in January 2025. However, the available information about this case is extremely limited, making it impossible to determine what specific workplace issue was at the center of the dispute. Read the ruling.
Ball v. Landmark Credit Union (2022) — Defendant Win. This case involved a civil rights discrimination claim filed by an employee named Ball against Landmark Credit Union in 2022. The worker alleged that the credit union discriminated against them, though the specific details about the type of discrimination or circumstances are not available in the court records provided… Read the ruling.
The published opinions primarily involve Wage Theft, Breach of Contract, Discrimination. Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Wage Theft, Breach of Contract and Discrimination.
Published opinions span Wisconsin. Wisconsin 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. Wisconsin rulings.
These published opinions sit within the financial services sector, where Sarbanes-Oxley and Dodd-Frank whistleblower protections often supplement standard Title VII claims.
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 Finance 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.