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
Greater St. Louis Construction Laborers Welfare Fund v. Eason Construction, LLC
Employers & Cement Masons 90 Health & Welfare Fund v. JMY Plastering Specialist, LLC
Greater St. Louis Construction Laborers Welfare Fund v. B.F.W. Contracting, LLC
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. BNSF Railway Company
NLRB v. Noah's Ark Processors, LLC
McGuire
Khoshneviszadeh
Greater St. Louis Construction Laborers Welfare Fund v. Buccaneer Excavating, LLC
Adkinson
Trustees of the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers (SMART) Local Union No. 36 Pension Plan v. H & H Sheet Metal & Contracting Company
St. Louis-Kansas City Carpenters Regional Council v. Millenium Installation Group, LLC
Bohner
Daniel
Scott
Jamerison
Hopman
Trimark Hotel Corporation v. International Union of Operating Engineers Local Union No. 70
Greater St. Louis Construction Laborers Welfare Fund v. B.F.W. Contracting, LLC
Allen
Mosley
Urbanec
Overby
Noem
Gompert
Peterson
Peel
Fry
Noem
Laber
Baker
Baker
Nagel
Hartman
Wortham
Coats
Rosenkranz
Todd
Hall
Dillard
Nauss
Echols
Iron Workers St. Louis District Council Pension Trust Fund v. Elite Rebar, LLC
Construction Industry Laborers Pension Fund v. Danna Excavating, LLC
Department of Labor v. Craftsman Independent Union
Vines
Baxter
Walsh
Sadare
Breckenridge O'Fallon, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union No. 682
Joe
Showing 301–350 of 1,462 rulings · Page 7 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.