Employment Rulings in the Eighth Circuit
The Eighth Circuit covers the federal courts in Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. The rulings below come from the circuit's court of appeals and the federal trial courts within it.
Of the 752 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.
How These Rulings Ended
Of the 752 published rulings we track in the Eighth Circuit.
What Happens at Each Stage
A workplace lawsuit moves through stages, and a ruling can end it at any of them. Here is where the 752 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 180 summary-judgment rulings here, 112 ended the case in the employer’s favor and 67 let the worker’s claims continue; the rest resolved in other ways.
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.
Top Claim Types
States in This Circuit
Browse rulings from courts in each state the Eighth Circuit covers.
Recent Rulings in the Eighth Circuit
BNSF Railway Company v. U.S. Dept. of Labor
Ross Christensen v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.
EEOC v. Sun Chemical Corporation
Rick Hibbert v. MC Realty Group, LLC
Anthony Knight v. Cambria Company, LLC
Becky Joseph v. Thomas-Grace Const. Inc.
Sara Dobbins v. Brooke L. Rollins
Christine Klimek v. CentraCare Health System
Angela Kendall v. Zoltek Corporation
Krishnan Ghosh v. Abbott Laboratories
Goldfinch Laboratory, P.C. v. Iowa Pathology Associates, P.C.
City Wide Construction Products Company v. Teamsters Local Union No. 245
Michelle Siebrecht v. Mercy Health Services - Iowa Corp.
Adam Keup v. Nicholas Palmer
Ervin
Sattar
Nelson v. SIS Software, LLC
Farmer de la Torre v. Catholic Charities of Southern Missouri, Inc.
Lori Chavez-DeRemer v. Levering Regional Health Care Center, L.LC.
Cromeens
Felton
Christianson
Gustilo
Glynn
Johnson v. People Ready
United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union v. Magnitude 7 Metals, LLC.
Carpenter
Kleinsteuber
Hitt
Harrison
Su
Flake
Dieter
Greater St. Louis Construction Laborers Welfare Fund v. Diestelkamp Contracting, LLC
Bergman
Kanter
Hardy
Board of Trustees of Omaha Construction Industry Pension Fund v. Kotas Enterprises, LLC
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. St. Cloud Area Family YMCA
Mid-America Carpenters Regional Council v. Achieving Vision Builders, LLC
Navarro
Knight
Covington
Krebsbach
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Ranger Tool & Die Inc
Su
Navarro
Shustarich
Ahmann
Wulf
Showing 1–50 of 752 rulings · Page 1 of 16
Browse Other Circuits
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.