Mylan Laboratories, Inc.
23 distinct federal employment cases from public court records (2000–2019)
15 trusted published court opinions across 14 distinct cases
What public court records show
Public federal court records list Mylan Laboratories, Inc. as an employer in 23 distinct federal employment cases between 2000 and 2019.
Of the 15 trusted published opinions analyzed, the most common outcomes were: 6 ended in a ruling for the employer, 4 had a mixed result, 3 were sent back to a lower court, and 2 ended in a ruling for the worker.
Plaintiffs won 2 of 12 adjudicated opinions (17%).
The most common claims on record were Breach Of Contract, Wrongful Termination, and Discrimination.
Cases were filed across 4 states, most often in MA.
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 14 distinct cases.
2 of 12 adjudicated opinions ended in a plaintiff win.
Does not imply wrongdoing — many cases are dismissed or resolved without findings of liability.
Jurisdictions represented in the analyzed opinions.
About this employer
Mylan Laboratories, Inc. appears in 15 trusted published federal employment opinions. Recent written decisions on record:
Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial & Service Workers International Union, Local 8-957 (2008) — Plaintiff Win. This case involved a dispute over whether a pharmaceutical company could fire an employee. Mylan Pharmaceuticals had terminated a worker, but the employee's union challenged the firing through arbitration (a formal dispute resolution process outlined in their contract). Read the ruling.
Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial & Service Workers International Union, Local 8-957 (2007) — Plaintiff Win. Mylan Pharmaceuticals fired employee Irma Brooks, claiming she committed misconduct. The company wanted the court to support its decision to terminate her permanently. However, Brooks's union disagreed and used the arbitration process outlined in their labor contract to challenge the firing. Read the ruling.
Robertson v. Mylan Laboratories, Inc. (2004) — Defendant Win. Robertson sued Mylan Laboratories, claiming the company discriminated against her because of her gender. She argued that Mylan unfairly passed her over for hiring, paid her less than male colleagues, and retaliated against her for complaining about these issues. Read the ruling.
The published opinions primarily involve Breach of Contract (4 of 15), Wrongful Termination (3 of 15), Discrimination. Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Breach of Contract, Wrongful Termination and Discrimination.
Published opinions span Massachusetts (3), West Virginia (3), District of Columbia (1), Pennsylvania (1). Massachusetts 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. Massachusetts rulings, West Virginia rulings, District of Columbia rulings and Pennsylvania rulings.
These published opinions sit within the healthcare sector, where employment disputes commonly involve HIPAA-adjacent retaliation, nursing-license issues, and accommodations under the ADA.
Opinion Outcomes
Opinion Stages
15 analyzed opinions have a classified procedural stage.
Of the 2 summary-judgment opinions, 0 ended the case in Mylan Laboratories, Inc.’s favor and 2 let the worker’s claims continue.
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 →
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 Healthcare 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.