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 1,462 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 1,462 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 1,452 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 310 summary-judgment rulings here, 196 ended the case in the employer’s favor and 114 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.
Top Claim Types
States in This Circuit
Browse rulings from courts in each state the Eighth Circuit covers.
Recent Rulings in the Eighth Circuit
Jones
Reynolds
Edgett
St. Paul Park Ref. Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
Silverman
ABM Industry Groups, LLC v. Service Employees International Union, Local 26
Chapman
Hillesheim
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. East 40, Inc.
Franklin
POET, LLC v. Nelson Engineering, Inc.
Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Anderson Excavating, Co.
McIntyre
Burwell
Hall
Childers
Bluelinx Corporation v. Construction, Building Material, Ice & Coal Helpers & Inside Employees Union Local Number 120, The
Restaurant Recycling, LLC v. Employer Mutual Casualty Co.
Nat'l Elevator Bargaining Ass'n v. Int'l Union of Elevator Constructors
Centerpoint Energy Res. Corp. v. Gas Workers Union
G.C.
Secretary of Labor v. Walmart Stores East
Michael Holloway v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.
Spence
Leato
Nagel
Vara Birapaka v. U.S. Army Research Laboratory
NLRB v. Jon Westrum
G.C.
Dailey
Holladay
Wildman
Milton
Nadeau
Employers Preferred Ins. Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity
Walsh
Cope
Johnson v. Charps Welding & Fabricating, Inc.
International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Local Union No. 10 v. A-1 Refrigeration of Hibbing, Inc.
Murdock
Cassidy
Yousefzadeh
Guenther
Adams
Acosta
In re EpiPen ERISA Litigation (Klein v. Prime Therapeutics, LLC)
Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters Local Union No. 618 v. Henkel Consumer Prods.
Wildman
Thomas
Dustin Hess v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.
Showing 601–650 of 1,462 rulings · Page 13 of 30
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.