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 1,807 published rulings we track here (1968–2026), 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 1,807 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 1,761 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 331 summary-judgment rulings here, 229 ended the case in the employer’s favor and 102 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
Top Employers
States in This Circuit
Browse rulings from courts in each state the Eleventh Circuit covers.
Recent Rulings in the Eleventh Circuit
Davis
Allen
SNEED
Kondapalli
Benjamin
Culverhouse
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Qualtool, Inc.
Braggs
Star Title Partners of Palm Harbor, LLC v. Illinois Union Insurance Company
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Outokumpu Stainless Steel USA, LLC
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, Local 188 Pension Fund v. Johnson Controls, Inc.
Facsina
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Qualtool, Inc.
Braggs
Castillo Sanchez v. ABC Professional Tree Services, Inc.
Shed
HOCKADAY
Spears
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Dolgencorp, LLC
Urban
Myers
Salazar Cano v. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commision (EEOC)
Graves
Branaman
Amadasun
HOCKADAY
Murdock
O'Neal
Freeman
Webb
Ramirez
Government Employees Insurance Co. v. The Right Spinal Clinic, Inc.
Rivera
Mason v. Pathfinders for Independence, Inc.
Moxley
Churchill
Torres
NDC Construction Company v. Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor
FAMA Construction, LLC v. U.S. Department of Labor
Straker
U.S. Department of Labor v. Tampa Electric Company
Hall
Wilkie
Stone v. Fishhawk Anderson Inc
HENDERSON v. CHATTAHOOCHEE SLEEP CENTER LLC
Kersch
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. St. Joseph's/Candler Health System, Inc.
United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, Local 188 Pension Fund v. Johnson Controls, Inc.
ADAMS
NGANGA
Showing 601–650 of 1,807 rulings · Page 13 of 37
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.