TEMPLE UNIVERSITY
28 distinct federal employment cases from public court records (2013–2025)
4 trusted published court opinions across 4 distinct cases · 4 docket-only cases without a recorded end date
What public court records show
Public federal court records list TEMPLE UNIVERSITY as an employer in 28 distinct federal employment cases between 2013 and 2025.
The most common claims on record were Retaliation, Discrimination, and Failure To Accommodate.
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
TEMPLE UNIVERSITY appears in 4 trusted published federal employment opinions. Recent written decisions on record:
HAN v. TEMPLE UNIVERSITY (2024) — Defendant Win. Han filed a lawsuit against Temple University claiming discrimination, retaliation, and failure to provide accommodations related to disabilities under federal law. He asked the court to allow him to proceed anonymously—keeping his identity private throughout the case—because he feared harm from revealing his name. Read the ruling.
HOUSER v. FELDMAN (2022) — Mixed Result. This case involved a dispute between an employee named Houser and their employer, Feldman, over alleged violations of trade secrets laws. Trade secrets are confidential business information like customer lists, formulas, or processes that companies want to keep private from competitors. Read the ruling.
WOLF v. TEMPLE UNIVERSITY (2022) — Mixed Result. Wolf filed a lawsuit against Temple University claiming age discrimination, retaliation, and wrongful termination. The case also involved a failure to rehire Wolf after employment ended. Both sides asked the court to decide parts of the case before trial. Read the ruling.
The published opinions primarily involve Retaliation, Discrimination, Failure to Accommodate. Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Retaliation, Discrimination and Failure to Accommodate.
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 education sector, where Title IX intersects with Title VII and tenure-revocation cases raise heightened procedural protections.
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 Education 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.