Employment Rulings in the Eleventh Circuit
The Eleventh Circuit covers the federal courts in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. The rulings below come from the circuit's court of appeals and the federal trial courts within it.
Of the 729 published rulings we track here (1974–2026), 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 729 published rulings we track in the Eleventh 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 726 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 165 summary-judgment rulings here, 128 ended the case in the employer’s favor and 37 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 Eleventh Circuit covers.
Recent Rulings in the Eleventh Circuit
Cyprian
United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial & Service Workers International Union v. Wise Alloys, LLC
Roadway Express, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
Jovine
National Labor Relations Board v. CSS Healthcare Services, Inc.
Hopkins
Robin Odum v. Government Employees Insurance Co.
Mitchell v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.
Adams
Corporate America Credit Union v. Rubin Brown LLP
Wrestlereunion, LLC v. Live Nation, Inc.
Quail Cruises Ship Management Ltd. v. Agencia De Viagens CVC Tur Limitada
Andrews
Agrico Canada Ltd. v. Helm Fertilizer Corp.
Michael Gale v. U.S. Department of Labor
Shaw
Maples
Henry Craig Pride v. Laboratory Corp. of America
Lenin Adali Rodas Alfaro v. U.S. Attorney General
Gutman
Billingslea
Betkowski
Heritage Corp. of South Florida v. National Union
Brillas v. Bennett Auto Supply, Inc.
Eller Media Corp. v. National Union Fire Insurance
Dominguez v. Miami-Dade County
Coppage
Yvett Smith v. Atlanta Postal Credit Union
National Labor Relations Board v. Austal USA, LLC
Seldon
Byrne
Glenn
Carlos M. Muino v. U.S. Department of Labor
Richey
Jorge Guzman v. Irmadan, Inc.
George T. Luckie v. U.S. Dept. of Labor
Demers v. Adams Homes of Northwest Florida, Inc.
Shelly Lapenna v. Government Employees Insurance
Teresa Vegter v. Canada Life Assurance Co.
Bush
Wackenhut Corp. v. Service Employees Internation Union
Burge
Milbourn
Secretary of Labor v. South Florida Contractors
Ironworkers Local Union No. 68 v. Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals LP
Federal Insurance v. National Union Fire Insurance
Riad Majali v. U.S. Dept. of Labor
MIRRAS
Adams
Autery
Showing 501–550 of 729 rulings · Page 11 of 15
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.