The D.C. Circuit covers the federal courts in the District of Columbia. The rulings below come from the circuit's court of appeals and the federal trial courts within it.
Of the 1,408 published rulings we track here (1973–2026), the breakdowns below show how they were decided. They describe published opinions only — not the odds of any particular situation.
Of the 1,408 published rulings we track in the D.C. Circuit.
A workplace lawsuit moves through stages, and a ruling can end it at any of them. Here is where the 1,403 rulings we could classify by stage were decided.
A higher court reviewing an earlier decision. Many published opinions come from this stage, after a lot has already happened in the case.
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.
Of the 200 summary-judgment rulings here, 102 ended the case in the employer’s favor and 98 let the worker’s claims continue.
An early request — usually by the employer — to throw the case out before any evidence is gathered.
A judge or jury heard the evidence and reached a decision. Relatively few disputes get this far.
The two sides resolved the dispute by agreement, sometimes with court approval. Most settlements are private and never show up in published opinions.
A decision entered because one side did not respond to the case at all.
Procedural decisions and orders that do not fit the main stages above.
Browse rulings from courts in each state the D.C. Circuit covers.
Abney v. Solidarity Center
Walker v. New Venture Fund
Van Rooy v. Anb 623 LLC
Samai v. Mayorkas
Smith v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Vanech v. Chavez-Deremer
Adelegan v. District of Columbia
Regis v. Mayorkas
Hawkins v. Whole Foods Market Inc.
Kancharla v. Federal National Mortgage Association
Stewart v. Fj Property Payroll, LLC
Graves-Buckingham v. Mayorkas
Betts v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Van Horn v. McCarthy
Williams v. Dc Housing Authority Police Department
Carter v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Woolcock v. Michaels Organization LLC
Sobot v. Clean the World Foundation Inc.
Acon-Chen v. Buttigieg
Lucas v. Guzman
Warren v. Kennedy
Shanks v. International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers
Lambert v. International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers
Moseley v. International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers
Lang v. District of Columbia
Kalipeni v. Family Values at Work
Brown v. Alphasense, Inc.
Hobson v. Green Finance Authority
Smith v. Camden Development Inc.
Anderson v. Bdo USA, P.C.
Roberts-Gregory v. American Association for the Advancement of Science
Jeter v. Federal Bureau of Investigation
Hale v. Ymca of Metropolitan Washington
Anderson v. Bdo USA, P.C.
Chang v. United American Security, LLC
Farah Naz v. Chris Wright
Johnson v. Bow Wave LLC
Koudoukara v. Embassy of Mali
Mallon v. Collins
Murphy v. Meink
Teran-Sanchez v. Stream Realty Partners
Vermont Information Processing, Inc. v. NLRB
Ikome v. O'Donnell
Pearson v. Caci
Vanison v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
Dehaarte v. District of Columbia
Jackson v. Bessent
Earle v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Earle v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission
Evans v. Individual Advocacy Group, Inc
Showing 1–50 of 1,408 rulings · Page 1 of 29
Explore employment rulings from the other federal circuits.
These figures summarize publicly available published court opinions only. Published opinions over-represent summary-judgment rulings (decisions made without a trial) and appeals, because those are the stages where judges most often write formal opinions. Most workplace disputes settle privately and never appear here at all. A ruling’s outcome reflects many case-specific factors and is not a prediction for any other situation. Read more about how we source and classify rulings.
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 classification of outcomes and case stages is based on automated analysis and may not reflect the full scope of each case.