Sears, Roebuck & Co.
43 distinct federal employment cases from public court records (1973–2018)
19 trusted published court opinions analyzed; 18 map to 17 distinct cases
What public court records show
Public federal court records list Sears, Roebuck & Co. as an employer in 43 distinct federal employment cases between 1973 and 2018.
Of the 19 trusted published opinions analyzed, the most common outcomes were: 11 ended in a ruling for the employer, 5 had a mixed result, 2 ended in a ruling for the worker, and 1 were dismissed.
Plaintiffs won 2 of 19 adjudicated opinions (11%).
The most common claims on record were Discrimination, Failure To Accommodate, and Retaliation.
Cases were filed across 8 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 17 distinct cases.
2 of 19 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
Sears, Roebuck & Co. appears in 19 trusted published federal employment opinions. Recent written decisions on record:
Sears, Roebuck & Company, Petitioner/cross-Respondent v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent/cross-Petitioner (2003) — Defendant Win. This case involved three Sears employees who were fired and claimed their terminations were illegal retaliation for union activities. The employees filed complaints with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), arguing that Sears fired them because they were involved in union organizing or other activities protected… Read the ruling.
Sears Roebuck v. NLRB (2003) — Defendant Win. Three Sears employees were fired, and they claimed it was because of their union activities. The employees filed complaints saying Sears illegally retaliated against them for trying to organize or participate in union-related work. Read the ruling.
Crock v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (2003) — Defendant Win. This case involved an employee who sued Sears, claiming the company discriminated against them because of a disability, retaliated against them for complaining, harassed them, and failed to provide reasonable accommodations at work. Read the ruling.
The published opinions primarily involve Discrimination (8 of 19), Failure to Accommodate (4 of 19), Retaliation (4 of 19). Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Discrimination, Failure to Accommodate and Retaliation.
Applicable statutes referenced across these rulings include: NLRA (29 U.S.C. §§ 151-169) — The National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) protects the rights of employees to organize, form or join labor unions, bargain collectively through representatives of their choosing, and engage in other concerted activities for mutual aid or protection. See the NLRA reference page for filing deadlines, employee thresholds, and remedies. NLRA.
Published opinions span Illinois (5), New York (1), Minnesota (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, New York rulings and Minnesota rulings.
These published opinions sit within the retail sector, where wage-and-hour, scheduling, and Title VII harassment claims are the dominant categories.
Opinion Outcomes
Opinion Stages
19 analyzed opinions have a classified procedural stage.
Of the 5 summary-judgment opinions, 3 ended the case in Sears, Roebuck & Co.’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.
- Trial verdict
- A judge or jury heard the evidence and reached a decision. Relatively few disputes get this far.
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 Retail 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.