Skip to main content
Retail

Macy's Inc.

83 distinct federal employment cases from public court records (20102025)

15 trusted published court opinions across 11 distinct cases · 5 docket-only cases without a recorded end date

What public court records show

Public federal court records list Macy's Inc. as an employer in 83 distinct federal employment cases between 2010 and 2025.

Of the 15 trusted published opinions analyzed, the most common outcomes were: 12 ended in a ruling for the employer, 2 ended in a ruling for the worker, and 1 had a mixed result.

Plaintiffs won 2 of 15 adjudicated opinions (13%).

The most common claims on record were Retaliation, Wrongful Termination, and Wage Theft.

Cases were filed across 6 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.

15
Published Opinions Analyzed

Written decisions across 11 distinct cases.

13%
Plaintiff Win Rate

2 of 15 adjudicated opinions ended in a plaintiff win.

Does not imply wrongdoing — many cases are dismissed or resolved without findings of liability.

6
States

Jurisdictions represented in the analyzed opinions.

Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

About this employer

Macy's Inc. appears in 15 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. This case involves the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) taking enforcement action against the retail giant Macy's Inc. for alleged violations of federal labor laws. The NLRB is the government agency that protects workers' rights to organize, join unions, and engage in collective bargaining. 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 15), Wrongful Termination (3 of 15), Wage Theft (3 of 15). Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Retaliation, Wrongful Termination and Wage Theft.

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 (4), Massachusetts (1), Ohio (1), Arizona (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, Massachusetts rulings, Ohio rulings and Arizona 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

Defendant Win
12 (80%)
Plaintiff Win
2 (13%)
Mixed Result
1 (7%)

Opinion Stages

15 analyzed opinions have a classified procedural stage.

Appeal
6 (40%)
Summary judgment
1 (7%)

Of the 1 summary-judgment opinions, 1 ended the case in Macy's Inc.’s favor and 0 let the worker’s claims continue.

Motion to dismiss
8 (53%)
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 →

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 records

One row per court+docket case · written opinions stay grouped inside their case · plaintiff names redacted

Employee v. Macy's Inc
S.D.N.Y. · Dec 2025
Employee v. MacY's Inc.
9th Circuit · Oct 2025 · Retaliation
2 opinionsMixed Result
Employee v. Macy's Retail Holdings, LLC
W.D. Tex. · Sep 2025
Employee v. Macy's Inc.
S.D.N.Y. · Apr 2025
Employee v. Macy's, Inc.
D. Kan. · Dec 2023
Employee v. Macy's, Inc.
S.D. Cal. · Oct 2022
Docket closed
Employee v. Macy's, Inc.
Cal. Ct. App. · Sep 2022 · Tortious Interference
Plaintiff Win
Employee v. Macy's Corporate Services, LLC
D. Conn. · Sep 2022
Docket closed
Employee v. Macy's Corporate Services, LLC
N.D. W. Va. · Sep 2022
Employee v. Macy's Retail Holdings, LLC
N.D. Ga. · Aug 2022
Docket closed
Employee v. Macy's Inc.
N.D. Cal. · Mar 2022 · California · Discrimination
Defendant Win
Secretary of Labor v. Macy's, Inc.
S.D. Ohio · Feb 2022 · Ohio · Breach of Contract
Defendant Win
Employee v. Macy's Retail Holdings, LLC
N.D. Tex. · Oct 2021
Docket closed
Employee v. Macy's Retail Holdings, LLC
N.D. Tex. · Oct 2021
Docket closed
Employee v. Macy's Corporate Services, LLC
N.D. W. Va. · Sep 2021 · West Virginia · Discrimination
Defendant Win
Employee v. Macys West Stores, Inc.
C.D. Cal. · Jun 2021 · California · Wage Theft
3 opinionsDefendant Win
Employee v. Macy's Retail Holdings, Inc.
S.D. Tex. · Nov 2020
Docket closed
Employee v. Macy's Inc.
N.D. Ga. · Nov 2020
Docket closed
Employee v. BOARD OF REVIEW (DEPARTMENT OF LABOR)
NJSUPERCTAPPDIV · Jun 2020
2 opinionsDefendant Win
Employee v. MACY'S RETAIL HOLDINGS, INC.
E.D. Pa. · Apr 2020 · Pennsylvania · Discrimination
Defendant Win
Employee v. Macy's Inc.
E.D.N.Y. · Feb 2020
Docket closed
Employee v. MACY'S RETAIL HOLDINGS
D.N.J. · Jan 2020
Docket closed
Employee v. Macy's Incorporated
D. Ariz. · Oct 2019 · Arizona · Wrongful Termination
Defendant Win
Employee v. Macy's Inc.
N.D. W. Va. · May 2019
Docket closed
Employee v. Macy's Inc
N.D. Ala. · Dec 2018
Docket closed
Showing 25 of 83

Understand your employment rights

Free, private, no sign-up required.

Check My Rights

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.