UHS of Delaware, Inc.
32 distinct federal employment cases from public court records (2010–2026)
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 UHS of Delaware, Inc. as an employer in 32 distinct federal employment cases between 2010 and 2026.
The most common claims on record were Discrimination, Wage Theft, and Failure To Accommodate.
Cases were filed across 4 states, most often in TN.
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
UHS of Delaware, Inc. appears in 4 trusted published federal employment opinions. Recent written decisions on record:
UHS of Denver, Inc. v. Adam Skibell (2022) — Plaintiff Win. This case involved a workplace dispute between UHS of Denver, Inc. (a healthcare company) and employee Adam Skibell that went to arbitration rather than regular court. Arbitration is a private process where a neutral third party settles disputes instead of a judge and jury. Read the ruling.
Lindberg v. UHS OF LAKESIDE, LLC (2011) — Mixed Result. This case involved employees at UHS of Lakeside, LLC who claimed their employer illegally withheld overtime pay. The workers argued that the company's policy of automatically deducting meal break time from their paychecks violated federal wage laws, even when employees couldn't actually take those breaks due to work de… Read the ruling.
Maples v. UHS OF GEORGIA, INC. (2010) — Defendant Win. A nurse named Maples worked part-time at UHS of Georgia, Inc. When the hospital eliminated her position, she filed a lawsuit claiming she was treated unfairly based on her age. She argued the company discriminated against her under age discrimination laws. Read the ruling.
The published opinions primarily involve Discrimination, Wage Theft, Failure to Accommodate. Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Discrimination, Wage Theft and Failure to Accommodate.
Published opinions span Tennessee (1), Georgia (1), Colorado (1), New Jersey (1). Tennessee 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. Tennessee rulings, Georgia rulings, Colorado rulings and New Jersey rulings.
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 employers with published opinions
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.