United Parcel Service, Inc.
521 federal employment cases from public court records (1997–2026)
116 with a published ruling · 405 open dockets
What public court records show
Public federal court records list United Parcel Service, Inc. as an employer in 521 employment matters between 1997 and 2026.
Of the 95 matters with a recorded outcome, the most common were: 46 ended in a ruling for the employer, 16 ended in a ruling for the worker, 14 had a mixed result, and 14 were sent back to a lower court.
Workers obtained a favorable ruling in about 17% of matters with a recorded outcome.
The most common claims on record were Discrimination, Retaliation, and Failure To Accommodate.
Cases were filed across 22 states, most often in CA.
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.
Does not imply wrongdoing — many cases are dismissed or resolved without findings of liability.
About this employer
United Parcel Service, Inc. appears in 95 federal employment-law court rulings on record. These cases sit within the transportation sector, where USERRA, FMLA, and DOT safety-retaliation claims appear alongside standard discrimination claims. 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 Discrimination (41 of 95), Retaliation (27 of 95), Failure to Accommodate (25 of 95). Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Discrimination, Retaliation and Failure to Accommodate.
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.
Rulings span California (16), New York (8), Kansas (6), Michigan (4). California 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. California rulings, New York rulings, Kansas rulings and Michigan rulings.
Case Outcomes
Case Stages
The stage at which courts issued United Parcel Service, Inc.’s 90 stage-identified rulings.
Of the 13 summary-judgment rulings, 10 ended the case in United Parcel Service, Inc.’s favor and 3 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
Federal cases
public court recordsOne row per case · a badge means the case reached a published ruling · plaintiff names redacted
Other Transportation & Logistics employers
Browse rulings 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.