Port of Seattle
3 distinct federal employment cases from public court records (2011–2025)
3 trusted published court opinions across 3 distinct cases
What public court records show
Public federal court records list Port of Seattle as an employer in 3 distinct federal employment cases between 2011 and 2025.
The most common claims on record were Harassment, Discrimination, and Hostile Work Environment.
Cases were filed across 1 state (WA).
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 3 distinct cases.
Jurisdictions represented in the analyzed opinions.
About this employer
Port of Seattle appears in 3 trusted published federal employment opinions. Recent written decisions on record:
Sloan v. Port of Seattle (2025) — Mixed Result. Sloan filed a lawsuit against the Port of Seattle, claiming the employer discriminated against them, retaliated for complaining about unfair treatment, failed to provide necessary workplace accommodations, created a hostile work environment, and wrongfully fired them. Read the ruling.
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 286 v. Port of Seattle (2013) — Mixed Result. This case involved a dispute between the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 286, and the Port of Seattle over employment matters. The union filed a lawsuit against the port authority, likely challenging workplace policies, contract terms, or treatment of union members, though specific details of their co… Read the ruling.
International Union v. Port of Seattle (2011) — Mixed Result. A Port of Seattle employee was fired after hanging a noose at work—a symbol associated with racial violence and intimidation. An arbitrator (a private judge chosen to settle labor disputes) reinstated the worker with only a 20-day suspension instead of upholding the termination. Read the ruling.
The published opinions primarily involve Harassment, Discrimination, Hostile Work Environment. Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Harassment, Discrimination and Hostile Work Environment.
Published opinions span Washington. Washington 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. Washington rulings.
These published opinions sit within the transportation sector, where USERRA, FMLA, and DOT safety-retaliation claims appear alongside standard discrimination claims.
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 Transportation & Logistics 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.