Miami University
6 distinct federal employment cases from public court records (1994–2022)
3 trusted published court opinions analyzed; 1 map to 1 distinct case
What public court records show
Public federal court records list Miami University as an employer in 6 distinct federal employment cases between 1994 and 2022.
The most common claims on record were Retaliation, Breach Of Contract, and Discrimination.
Cases were filed across 1 state (OH).
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 1 distinct case.
Jurisdictions represented in the analyzed opinions.
About this employer
Miami University appears in 3 trusted published federal employment opinions. Recent written decisions on record:
Finley v. Miami Univ. (2022) — Defendant Win. A former employee sued Miami University claiming employment discrimination and retaliation. The employee alleged unfair treatment related to a tenure decision made on December 11, 2017. The case centered on whether the lawsuit was filed in time under Ohio law. Read the ruling.
Chan v. Miami Univ. (1995) — Plaintiff Win. A tenured professor named Chan faced a formal sexual harassment complaint from a graduate student. Instead of following the standard procedures required for firing tenured faculty members, Miami University used the sexual harassment grievance process to remove him from his position. Read the ruling.
State Emp. Relations Bd. v. Miami Univ. (1994) — Plaintiff Win. Miami University unilaterally stopped negotiating with AFSCME, a union that represented its employees. The university claimed it had good faith doubts about whether the union still represented a majority of workers, so it withdrew its recognition of the union and refused to continue bargaining. Read the ruling.
The published opinions primarily involve Retaliation, Breach of Contract, Discrimination. Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Retaliation, Breach of Contract and Discrimination.
Published opinions span Ohio. Ohio 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. Ohio rulings.
These published opinions sit within the education sector, where Title IX intersects with Title VII and tenure-revocation cases raise heightened procedural protections.
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 Education 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.