Skip to main content

United States Army

20 federal employment cases from public court records (19102025)

20 with a published ruling

What public court records show

Public federal court records list United States Army as an employer in 20 employment matters between 1910 and 2025.

Of the 19 matters with a recorded outcome, the most common were: 6 ended in a ruling for the employer, 5 were sent back to a lower court, 3 were dismissed, and 3 had a mixed result.

Workers obtained a favorable ruling in about 11% of matters with a recorded outcome.

The most common claims on record were Discrimination, Retaliation, and Wrongful Termination.

Cases were filed across 6 states, most often in NY.

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.

20
Federal Cases
11%
Plaintiff Win Rate

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

6
States
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

About this employer

United States Army appears in 19 federal employment-law court rulings on record. These cases sit within the broader workplace context. 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 (6 of 19), Retaliation (4 of 19), Wrongful Termination (4 of 19). Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Discrimination, Retaliation and Wrongful Termination.

Applicable statutes referenced across these rulings include: GINA (42 U.S.C. §§ 2000ff – 2000ff-11) — Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) prohibits employers from using genetic information in making employment decisions, restricts employers from requesting, requiring, or purchasing genetic information, and strictly limits the disclosure of genetic information. See the GINA reference page for filing deadlines, employee thresholds, and remedies. GINA.

Rulings span New York (3), Texas (1), Maryland (1), Alabama (1). New York 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. New York rulings, Texas rulings, Maryland rulings and Alabama rulings.

Case Outcomes

Defendant Win
6 (32%)
Remanded
5 (26%)
Dismissed
3 (16%)
Mixed Result
3 (16%)
Plaintiff Win
2 (11%)

Case Stages

The stage at which courts issued United States Army’s 19 stage-identified rulings.

Appeal
7 (37%)
Summary judgment
1 (5%)

Of the 1 summary-judgment rulings, 1 ended the case in United States Army’s favor and 0 let the worker’s claims continue.

Motion to dismiss
9 (47%)
Trial verdict
1 (5%)
Other rulings
1 (5%)
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.
Other rulings
Procedural decisions and orders that do not fit the main stages above.

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. CHAZAQ ORGANIZATION USA INC
E.D.N.Y. · Sep 2025 · New York · Discrimination
Defendant Win
Employee v. Richmond University Medical Center
E.D.N.Y. · Aug 2025 · New York · Discrimination
Dismissed
Employee v. United States Army
ASBCA · Jan 2025
Dismissed
Employee v. Moscow
D. Idaho · Sep 2024 · Idaho · Wrongful Termination
Defendant Win
Employee v. Baltimore County Maryland
D. Md. · Aug 2024 · Maryland · Failure to Accommodate
Dismissed
Employee v. Daigle Industries, LLC
M.D. La. · Jan 2023 · Louisiana · Breach of Contract
Plaintiff Win
Employee v. Bronx Lebanon Hospital
S.D.N.Y. · May 2022 · New York · Discrimination
Remanded
Employee v. The Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board
DELSUPERCT · Mar 2022
Remanded
Employee v. United States
Fed. Cl. · Aug 2020 · Wrongful Termination
Remanded
Employee v. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
N.D. Ala. · May 2020 · Alabama · Discrimination
Mixed Result
Employee v. Robert Shayne Sample
Tenn. Ct. App. · Sep 2018 · Divorce
Mixed Result
Employee v. United States
Fed. Cl. · Mar 2018 · Failure to Accommodate
Defendant Win
Employee v. United States Army
ASBCA · Nov 2016 · Breach of Contract
Defendant Win
Employee v. McHugh
D.D.C. · Jul 2015 · District of Columbia · Wrongful Termination
Open docket
Employee v. McHugh
D.C. Circuit · Jul 2015 · Wrongful Termination
Remanded
Employee v. Geren
W.D. Tex. · Feb 2008 · Texas · Discrimination
Mixed Result
Employee v. Francis J. Harvey
11th Circuit · Jan 2007 · Retaliation
Defendant Win
Employee v. Ada Elba Melendez Rivera-Santos
La. Ct. App. · Dec 2003
Plaintiff Win
Employee v. United States
9th Circuit · Sep 2001 · Discrimination
Defendant Win
Employee v. Sutherland
Unknown Court · May 1910 · Breach of Contract
Remanded
Showing 20 of 20

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.