Macy's Inc.
90 distinct federal cases coded as employment matters from public court records (2010–2025)
9 trusted published court opinions across 7 distinct cases · 5 docket-only cases without a recorded end date
What public court records show
In public federal court records, Macy's Inc. is named as a party in 90 federal cases coded as employment matters between 2010 and 2025.
Of the 8 trusted published opinions analyzed, the most common outcomes were: 6 ended in a ruling for the employer, 1 ended in a ruling for the worker, and 1 had a mixed result.
1 further opinion is listed below but left out of these outcome figures, because the employer brought the case or was not a party to it.
The most common claims on record were Retaliation, Discrimination, and Wrongful Termination.
Cases were filed across 5 states, most often in CA.
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 7 distinct cases.
Jurisdictions represented in the analyzed opinions.
About this employer
Macy's Inc. appears in 9 trusted published federal employment opinions. Recent written decisions on record:
National Labor Relations Board v. MacY's Inc. (2025) — Mixed Result. Macy's locked out union members—preventing them from working—without clearly explaining when or how they could return to their jobs. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), a federal agency that protects worker rights, determined this was illegal retaliation against the employees for their union activities. Read the ruling.
National Labor Relations Board v. MacY's Inc. (2025) — Plaintiff Win. Read the ruling.
Fazaei v. Macy's Inc. (2022) — Defendant Win. This case involved a worker named Fazaei who sued retail giant Macy's Inc., claiming the company discriminated against them and violated their civil rights while employed there. Read the ruling.
The published opinions primarily involve Retaliation (4 of 9), Discrimination (3 of 9), Wrongful Termination (2 of 9). Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Retaliation, Discrimination and Wrongful Termination.
Applicable statutes referenced across these rulings include: NLRA (29 U.S.C. §§ 151-169) — The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) protects the rights of employees to organize, form or join labor unions, bargain collectively through representatives of their choosing, and engage in other concerted activities for mutual aid or protection. See the NLRA reference page for filing deadlines, employee thresholds, and remedies. NLRA.
Published opinions span California (3), Arizona (1), Pennsylvania (1), West Virginia (1). California 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. California rulings, Arizona rulings, Pennsylvania rulings and West Virginia rulings.
These published opinions sit within the retail sector, where wage-and-hour, scheduling, and Title VII harassment claims are the dominant categories.
Opinion Outcomes
1 listed opinion is not counted here: the employer brought the case, or was not a party to an appeal against an agency, so the recorded outcome is not a result for or against a worker.
Opinion Stages
8 analyzed opinions have a classified procedural stage.
Of the 1 summary-judgment opinions, 1 ended the case in Macy's Inc.’s favor and 0 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.
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 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.