ManpowerGroup US Inc.
20 distinct federal employment cases from public court records (2015–2025)
3 trusted published court opinions across 2 distinct cases · 4 docket-only cases without a recorded end date
What public court records show
Public federal court records list ManpowerGroup US Inc. as an employer in 20 distinct federal employment cases between 2015 and 2025.
The most common claims on record were Discrimination, Breach Of Contract, and Failure To Accommodate.
Cases were filed across 2 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 2 distinct cases.
Jurisdictions represented in the analyzed opinions.
About this employer
ManpowerGroup US Inc. appears in 3 trusted published federal employment opinions. Recent written decisions on record:
Palardy v. AT&T Services, Inc. (2024) — Defendant Win. Palardy filed a lawsuit against Experis, a staffing agency, claiming discrimination based on disability. The employee alleged the company failed to provide necessary accommodations and wrongfully terminated employment. The case involved claims under federal disability protection laws. Read the ruling.
(PS) Horn v. Experis US, Inc. (2020) — Defendant Win. This case involved a dispute between P.S. Horn and Experis US, Inc., a staffing and consulting company. While the court record doesn't provide detailed information about the specific nature of Horn's complaint, it was an employment law case filed in December 2020. Read the ruling.
(PS) Horn v. Experis US, Inc. (2020) — Defendant Win. This case involved a dispute between an employee named Horn and Experis US, Inc., a staffing company. While the specific details of what Horn claimed against Experis aren't provided in the available information, the case dealt with employment law issues that arose between the worker and the staffing agency. Read the ruling.
The published opinions primarily involve Discrimination, Breach of Contract, Failure to Accommodate. Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Discrimination, Breach of Contract and Failure to Accommodate.
Published opinions span California (2), Texas (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 and Texas rulings.
These published opinions sit within the broader workplace context.
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 Staffing 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.