Motorola, Inc.
6 distinct federal employment cases from public court records (1977–2015)
5 trusted published court opinions across 5 distinct cases
What public court records show
Public federal court records list Motorola, Inc. as an employer in 6 distinct federal employment cases between 1977 and 2015.
Of the 5 trusted published opinions analyzed, the most common outcomes were: 2 ended in a ruling for the employer, 1 ended in a ruling for the worker, 1 were dismissed, and 1 had a mixed result.
The most common claims on record were Breach Of Contract, Wage Theft, and Discrimination.
Cases were filed across 2 states, most often in IL.
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 5 distinct cases.
Jurisdictions represented in the analyzed opinions.
About this employer
Motorola, Inc. appears in 5 trusted published federal employment opinions. Recent written decisions on record:
Former Employees of Motorola Ceramic Products v. United States (2003) — Plaintiff Win. Former employees of Motorola Ceramic Products filed a lawsuit after losing their jobs. They applied for Worker Adjustment Assistance benefits from the Department of Labor, which provides financial help and job training for workers who lose their jobs due to foreign trade. Read the ruling.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Motorola, Inc. (1977) — Mixed Result. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued Motorola, accusing the company of discrimination in hiring and promotion decisions. The EEOC claimed that Motorola's employment practices unfairly harmed workers based on their membership in protected groups—such as race or gender—even if the company didn't intent… Read the ruling.
The published opinions primarily involve Breach of Contract, Wage Theft, Discrimination. Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Breach of Contract, Wage Theft and Discrimination.
Published opinions span Illinois (1), New Mexico (1). Illinois 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. Illinois rulings and New Mexico rulings.
Opinion Outcomes
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 employers with published opinions
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.