Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
107 distinct federal employment cases from public court records (2000–2026)
50 trusted published court opinions across 46 distinct cases · 19 docket-only cases without a recorded end date
What public court records show
Public federal court records list Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority as an employer in 107 distinct federal employment cases between 2000 and 2026.
Of the 50 trusted published opinions analyzed, the most common outcomes were: 14 ended in a ruling for the worker, 14 ended in a ruling for the employer, 14 had a mixed result, and 7 were sent back to a lower court.
Plaintiffs won 14 of 43 adjudicated opinions (33%).
The most common claims on record were Workers Compensation, Breach Of Contract, and Discrimination.
Cases were filed across 3 states, most often in DC.
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 46 distinct cases.
14 of 43 adjudicated opinions ended in a plaintiff win.
Does not imply wrongdoing — many cases are dismissed or resolved without findings of liability.
Jurisdictions represented in the analyzed opinions.
About this employer
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority appears in 50 trusted published federal employment opinions. Recent written decisions on record:
Reddish v. Washington Metro Area Transit Authority (2026) — Mixed Result. Reddish worked for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority and claimed she faced discrimination and unfair treatment based on her sex. She also argued the agency failed to accommodate a disability and retaliated against her after complaining about problems at work. Read the ruling.
Monica Hockaday v. WMATA (2024) — Defendant Win. Monica Hockaday brought an employment-related case against the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority (WMATA), the public transit system serving the Washington D.C. area. The specific details of her workplace dispute are not clear from the available court information. Read the ruling.
Hockaday v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (2023) — Defendant Win. This case involved an employment dispute between a worker named Hockaday and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), the public transit system serving the Washington D.C. area. Read the ruling.
The published opinions primarily involve Workers’ Compensation (13 of 50), Breach of Contract (10 of 50), Discrimination (9 of 50). Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Workers’ Compensation, Breach of Contract and Discrimination.
Published opinions span District of Columbia (17), Maryland (4), Virginia (2). District of Columbia 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. District of Columbia rulings, Maryland rulings and Virginia rulings.
These published opinions sit within the transportation sector, where USERRA, FMLA, and DOT safety-retaliation claims appear alongside standard discrimination claims.
Opinion Outcomes
Opinion Stages
50 analyzed opinions have a classified procedural stage.
Of the 4 summary-judgment opinions, 3 ended the case in Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority’s favor and 1 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.
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
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 Transportation & Logistics 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.