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 1,504 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.
Of the 1,504 published rulings we track in the Eleventh Circuit.
A workplace lawsuit moves through stages, and a ruling can end it at any of them. Here is where the 1,492 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 352 summary-judgment rulings here, 232 ended the case in the employer’s favor and 120 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.
Browse rulings from courts in each state the Eleventh Circuit covers.
Soloski
Shelly Lapenna v. Government Employees Insurance
Teresa Vegter v. Canada Life Assurance Co.
American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, Inc. v. Miami-Dade County School Board
Long
Smith v. Angel Food Ministries, Inc.
Rando
Bush
Gregory v. EBF & Associates, L.P.
Edward J. Goodman Life Income Trust v. Jabil Circuit, Inc.
US EX REL. BANE v. Breathe Easy Pulmonary Services, Inc.
Wackenhut Corp. v. Service Employees Internation Union
Burge
United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Mallinckrodt, Inc.
Milbourn
National Labor Relations Board v. Richmond Health Care
NLRB v. Richmond Health Care
Stiefel Laboratories, Inc. v. Galderma Laboratories, Inc.
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
Islamorada
Cachia
Adams
Yaneth E. Estrada-Pena v. U.S. Atty. General
Autery
American Civil Liberties Union of Florida Inc. v. Dixie County Florida
Cesar Augusto H. Moncada v. U.S. Atty. General
Heritage Corp. of S. Fla. v. NAT. UNION FIRE INS.
National Labor Relations Board v. Rome Electrical Systems, Inc.
Kentish
Crenshaw
Erickson v. United States Department of Labor
Kari A. Schabo v. Gov't Employees Insurance Co.
Continental Casualty Co. v. Barbara F. Adamo
Michael Hadaway v. Dolgencorp, Inc.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Comcast of Georgia, Inc.
Brown
National Labor Relations Board v. U.S. Postal Service
Guzman
National Labor Relations Board v. Goya Foods
Corstiaan A. Kok v. Kadant Black Clawson, Inc.
Hathaway Development Co. v. Illinois Union Insurance
Patterson
McNa
Richardson v. Jackson
Chao
Shivers v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 349
Showing 1,051–1,100 of 1,504 rulings · Page 22 of 31
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.