Skip to main content
Retail

Walmart Inc.

1,603 federal employment cases from public court records (19952026)

218 with a published ruling · 1,385 open dockets

What public court records show

Public federal court records list Walmart Inc. as an employer in 1,603 employment matters between 1995 and 2026.

Of the 184 matters with a recorded outcome, the most common were: 96 ended in a ruling for the employer, 29 ended in a ruling for the worker, 22 had a mixed result, and 21 were dismissed.

Workers obtained a favorable ruling in about 16% of matters with a recorded outcome.

The most common claims on record were Discrimination, Wrongful Termination, and Failure To Accommodate.

Cases were filed across 35 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.

1,603
Federal Cases
16%
Plaintiff Win Rate

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

$654,480
Avg Damages (16 cases)

AI-extracted from court records; figures may be amounts at issue, not amounts paid. Not a finding of liability.

35
States
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

About this employer

Walmart Inc. appears in 184 federal employment-law court rulings on record. These cases sit within the retail sector, where wage-and-hour, scheduling, and Title VII harassment claims are the dominant categories. 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 (61 of 184), Wrongful Termination (38 of 184), Failure to Accommodate (38 of 184). Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Discrimination, Wrongful Termination and Failure to Accommodate.

Rulings span California (22), Wisconsin (13), Illinois (10), Florida (9). 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, Wisconsin rulings, Illinois rulings and Florida rulings.

Case Outcomes

Defendant Win
96 (52%)
Plaintiff Win
29 (16%)
Mixed Result
22 (12%)
Dismissed
21 (11%)
Remanded
15 (8%)
Settlement
1 (1%)

Case Stages

The stage at which courts issued Walmart Inc.’s 180 stage-identified rulings.

Appeal
83 (46%)
Summary judgment
32 (18%)

Of the 32 summary-judgment rulings, 27 ended the case in Walmart Inc.’s favor and 5 let the worker’s claims continue.

Motion to dismiss
55 (31%)
Trial verdict
7 (4%)
Settlement / consent decree
2 (1%)
Other rulings
1 (1%)
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.
Settlement / consent decree
The two sides resolved the dispute by agreement, sometimes with court approval. Most settlements are private and never show up in published opinions.
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. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.
N.D. Ga. · May 2026
Open docket
Employee v. Walmart Inc.
S.D. Fla. · May 2026
Open docket
Employee v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.
S.D. Fla. · May 2026
Open docket
Employee v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP
E.D.N.Y. · May 2026
Open docket
Employee v. Walmart Stores East LP
M.D. Fla. · Apr 2026
Open docket
Employee v. Sam's East, Inc.
S.D. Fla. · Apr 2026
Open docket
Employee v. Walmart Stores East, LP
S.D. Fla. · Apr 2026
Open docket
Employee v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.
D. Del. · Mar 2026
Open docket
Employee v. Econo Auto Painting of West Tennessee, Inc.
Tenn. Ct. App. · Mar 2026
Defendant Win
Employee v. Walmart Inc
W.D. Wash. · Mar 2026
Open docket
Employee v. Sam's East, Inc.
S.D.N.Y. · Mar 2026
Open docket
Employee v. Walmart Inc
C.D. Ill. · Mar 2026
Open docket
Employee v. Walmart Stores, Inc.
N.D. Ill. · Feb 2026
Open docket
Employee v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc
M.D. Fla. · Feb 2026
Open docket
Employee v. District of Columbia
D.D.C. · Feb 2026 · Illinois · Negligence
Defendant Win
Employee v. Walmart Stores Inc
D. Utah · Feb 2026
Open docket
Employee v. WALMART INC
N.D. Fla. · Jan 2026
Open docket
Employee v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP
M.D. Fla. · Jan 2026
Open docket
Employee v. Sam's East, Inc.
M.D. Fla. · Jan 2026
Open docket
Employee v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.
N.D. Fla. · Jan 2026
Open docket
Employee v. WAL-MART STORES INC
N.D. Fla. · Jan 2026
Open docket
Employee v. WALMART INC.
E.D. Pa. · Jan 2026
Open docket
Employee v. Walmart Inc.
W.D. Wis. · Dec 2025
Open docket
Employee v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.
M.D. Fla. · Dec 2025
Open docket
Employee v. Stephen Gendreau, et al.
D. Mass. · Dec 2025 · Massachusetts · Discrimination
Remanded
Showing the 25 most recent of 1,603

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.