Quad/Graphics, Inc.
10 distinct federal cases coded as employment matters from public court records (1994–2025)
2 trusted published court opinions across 2 distinct cases · 1 docket-only case without a recorded end date
What public court records show
In public federal court records, Quad/Graphics, Inc. is named as a defendant in 10 federal cases coded as employment matters between 1994 and 2025.
The most common claims on record were Discrimination.
Cases were filed across 1 state (WI).
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 2 distinct cases.
Jurisdictions represented in the analyzed opinions.
About this employer
Quad/Graphics, Inc. appears in 2 trusted published federal employment opinions. Recent written decisions on record:
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Applicant-Appellee v. Quad/graphics, Incorporated (1995) — Defendant Win. This case involved a dispute between the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Quad/Graphics, a printing company. The EEOC was investigating a discrimination complaint filed by a worker and issued a subpoena demanding that Quad/Graphics turn over employment records and documents. Read the ruling.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Quad/Graphics, Inc. (1994) — Plaintiff Win. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a federal agency that investigates workplace discrimination, sought access to hiring and recruitment records from Quad/Graphics, Inc.'s four plants in southeastern Wisconsin. The EEOC was investigating potential discrimination claims. Read the ruling.
The published opinion involves a discrimination claim. Browse other discrimination rulings for comparable fact patterns and how courts have ruled. Discrimination.
Published opinions span Wisconsin. Wisconsin 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. Wisconsin rulings.
These published opinions sit within the manufacturing sector, where OSHA whistleblower, FMLA, and disability-accommodation claims are most common.
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 court records naming this party
1 published opinion names this party but is not coded with an employment claim. Some are labor, unemployment or workers’ compensation matters whose claim type was not recorded; others are not employment disputes at all. They are not counted in any figure on this page, and no outcome is shown for them.
Other employers with published opinions
Browse trusted published opinions involving other employers.
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.