University of Rochester
15 distinct federal employment cases from public court records (2002–2025)
3 trusted published court opinions across 3 distinct cases · 2 docket-only cases without a recorded end date
What public court records show
Public federal court records list University of Rochester as an employer in 15 distinct federal employment cases between 2002 and 2025.
The most common claims on record were Discrimination, Retaliation, and Failure To Accommodate.
Cases were filed across 1 state (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.
Written decisions across 3 distinct cases.
Jurisdictions represented in the analyzed opinions.
About this employer
University of Rochester appears in 3 trusted published federal employment opinions. Recent written decisions on record:
Canady v. Union 1199 (2017) — Defendant Win. Canady, an employee, sued Union 1199 claiming discrimination and retaliation in violation of federal civil rights laws and New York state anti-discrimination laws. The case involved the University of Rochester as the employer. Read the ruling.
Sasannejad v. University of Rochester (2004) — Defendant Win. This case involved an employee named Sasannejad who filed a discrimination lawsuit against the University of Rochester. The worker claimed they faced discriminatory treatment during their employment at the university, though the specific details of the alleged discrimination are not provided in the available case infor… Read the ruling.
Lotosky v. University of Rochester (2002) — Defendant Win. Lotosky, an employee at the University of Rochester, sued her employer claiming religious discrimination, retaliation, failure to accommodate her religious needs, hostile work environment, and wrongful termination. Read the ruling.
The published opinions primarily involve Discrimination, Retaliation, National Origin Discrimination. Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Discrimination, Retaliation and National Origin Discrimination.
Published opinions span New York. 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.
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.