Skip to main content
Healthcare

SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc.

14 federal employment cases from public court records (19942009)

14 with a published ruling

What public court records show

Public federal court records list SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. as an employer in 14 employment matters between 1994 and 2009.

Of the 14 matters with a recorded outcome, the most common were: 11 ended in a ruling for the employer, 1 were dismissed, 1 were sent back to a lower court, and 1 had a mixed result.

Workers obtained a favorable ruling in about 0% of matters with a recorded outcome.

The most common claims on record were Wrongful Termination, Wage Theft, and Breach Of Contract.

Cases were filed across 5 states, most often in CT.

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.

14
Federal Cases
0%
Plaintiff Win Rate

Does not imply wrongdoing — many cases are dismissed or resolved without findings of liability.

5
States
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

About this employer

SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc. appears in 14 federal employment-law court rulings on record. These cases sit within the healthcare sector, where employment disputes commonly involve HIPAA-adjacent retaliation, nursing-license issues, and accommodations under the ADA. The set below covers rulings that produced written federal-court decisions; private settlements, EEOC charges resolved without litigation, and state-court cases are not included.

The cases primarily involve Wrongful Termination (3 of 14), Wage Theft (2 of 14), Breach of Contract (2 of 14). Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Wrongful Termination, Wage Theft and Breach of Contract.

Rulings span Connecticut (3), Massachusetts (2), Pennsylvania (1), California (1). Connecticut 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. Connecticut rulings, Massachusetts rulings, Pennsylvania rulings and California rulings.

Case Outcomes

Defendant Win
11 (79%)
Dismissed
1 (7%)
Remanded
1 (7%)
Mixed Result
1 (7%)

Case Stages

The stage at which courts issued SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc.’s 14 stage-identified rulings.

Appeal
6 (43%)
Summary judgment
4 (29%)

Of the 4 summary-judgment rulings, 3 ended the case in SmithKline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc.’s favor and 1 let the worker’s claims continue.

Motion to dismiss
4 (29%)
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 →

Federal cases

public court records

One row per case · a badge means the case reached a published ruling · plaintiff names redacted

Employee v. Abbott Laboratories
D. Mass. · Dec 2009 · Massachusetts · Wage Theft
Mixed Result
Employee v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.
D. Mass. · Dec 2003 · Massachusetts · Antitrust Violation
Defendant Win
Employee v. Smithkline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc.
Fla. Supreme · Sep 2003 · Wrongful Termination
Defendant Win
Employee v. Smithkline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc.
2nd Circuit · Sep 2003
Defendant Win
Employee v. Smithkline Beecham Health & Welfare Benefits Trust Plan for U.S. Employees Smithkline Beecham Unum Provident Corporation
3rd Circuit · Aug 2003 · Breach of Contract
Defendant Win
Employee v. Smithkline Beecham Clinical Laboratories
Ill. App. Ct. · Aug 2002 · Spoliation Of Evidence
Defendant Win
Employee v. Smithkline Beecham Clinical Laboratories
S.D. Fla. · Jun 2001 · Florida · Wrongful Termination
Defendant Win
United States of America, Exrel., Insoon Lee v. Smithkline Beecham, Inc. Smithkline Beecham Clinical Laboratories Does 1-100
9th Circuit · Apr 2001 · California · Whistleblower
Remanded
Employee v. Smithkline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc.
8th Circuit · Aug 2000 · Fraud
Defendant Win
Employee v. Smithkline Beecham, Their Agents, Officers, Employees and Successors in Interest
1st Circuit · Aug 2000 · Discrimination
Defendant Win
Employee v. Smithkline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc.
D. Conn. · Aug 2000 · Connecticut · Fraud
Defendant Win
Employee v. Smithkline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc.
D. Conn. · Mar 2000 · Connecticut
Defendant Win
Employee v. Smithkline Beecham Clinical Laboratories, Inc.
D. Conn. · Mar 2000 · Connecticut
Dismissed
Employee v. Wanczyk
E.D. Pa. · Jan 1994 · Pennsylvania · Wrongful Termination
Defendant Win
Showing 14 of 14

Understand your employment rights

Free, private, no sign-up required.

Check My Rights

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.