Meta Platforms, Inc.
17 distinct federal cases coded as employment matters from public court records (2016–2025)
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, Meta Platforms, Inc. is named as a defendant in 17 federal cases coded as employment matters between 2016 and 2025.
Across 2 trusted published opinions analyzed, recorded claim types include Discrimination and Whistleblower.
The analyzed published opinions with a recorded state span 2 states, most often in FL.
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
Meta Platforms, Inc. appears in 2 trusted published federal employment opinions. Recent written decisions on record:
Hickman v. Facebook/Meta (2025) — Dismissed. A former Facebook (now Meta) employee, Hickman, filed a discrimination lawsuit against the social media company, claiming they faced unfair treatment at work. The case was brought before a federal court in Florida, where Hickman alleged that Meta violated employment discrimination laws. Read the ruling.
Rajaram v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (2022) — Defendant Win. A former Meta (Facebook) employee named Rajaram filed a lawsuit against the company claiming workplace discrimination. The employee alleged that Meta treated them unfairly based on protected characteristics covered under employment discrimination laws. Read the ruling.
Across 2 trusted published opinions analyzed, recorded claim types include Discrimination, Whistleblower. Browse the linked claim hubs for other published opinions involving these claim types. Discrimination and Whistleblower.
Published opinions span Florida (1), California (1). Florida 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. Florida rulings and California rulings.
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 and docket; written opinions stay grouped inside their case. List captions may abbreviate names; public records and case details can identify the parties.
Other court records naming this party
2 published opinions name this party but are 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.