Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board
4 distinct federal employment cases from public court records (1983–2025)
4 trusted published court opinions across 4 distinct cases
What public court records show
Public federal court records list Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board as an employer in 4 distinct federal employment cases between 1983 and 2025.
The most common claims on record were Retaliation, Discrimination, and Harassment.
Cases were filed across 1 state (PA).
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 4 distinct cases.
Jurisdictions represented in the analyzed opinions.
About this employer
Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board appears in 4 trusted published federal employment opinions. Recent written decisions on record:
MUTHARD v. PENNSYLVANIA LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD (2025) — Mixed Result. This case involved an employment law dispute between a worker named Muthard and the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, which operates state liquor stores throughout Pennsylvania. Read the ruling.
Independent State Store Union v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (2011) — Defendant Win. The Independent State Store Union filed a complaint against the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, claiming the employer retaliated against workers for union activities. Read the ruling.
Eeoc v. Com., Pa. Liquor Control Bd. (1983) — Plaintiff Win. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board over its policy requiring all Liquor Law Enforcement Officers to retire at age 65. Read the ruling.
The published opinions primarily involve Retaliation, Discrimination, Harassment. Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Retaliation, Discrimination and Harassment.
Published opinions span Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania 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. Pennsylvania rulings.
These published opinions sit within the public sector, where due-process protections, First Amendment retaliation, and union-related (NLRA / state PERB) claims apply.
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 Government & Public Sector 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.