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.
Neal Everett Nicarry v. Michael Cannaday
Pittsburg & Midway Coal Mining Co. v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor
Fadalla
Heritage Corp. of S. Fla. v. National Union Fire
Adams
George Adams v. Allstate Insurance Co.
David King v. National Union Fire Insurance
Adams
Midlothian Laboratories, LLC v. PAMLAB, LLC
Dale M. Thompson v. William W. Adamson
Adams
Schena v. Metropolitan Life Retirement Plan for United States Employees
Gilley v. Monsanto Co. Employee Benefits Executive Committee
Paul E. Bates v. Islamorada, Village of Islands
Henry E. Adams v. Cobb County School District
Watkins Motor Lines, Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Watkins Motor Lines, Inc. v. EEOC
CSX Transportation, Inc. v. United Transportation Union
National Labor Relations Board v. Concrete Form Walls, Inc.
NLRB v. Concrete Form Walls, Inc.
Thomas
MAVERICK MEDIA GROUP v. Hillsborough County, Fla.
John Carlo, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor
Vondriska
Georgia Power Co. v. National Labor Relations Board
MacOla v. Government Employees Insurance
Taylor
Monaco v. Tanning Research Laboratories, Inc.
EMCON/OWT, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor
Mellot
Tomczyk
Armitage
Perez
John Acevedo v. First Union Nat'l Bank
Ross
Newman
Calvert
McGuire
Tom McAdams v. Francis J. Harvey
Schweers
National Labor Relations Board v. Gimrock Construction, Inc.
Lake Mary Health Care Associates, LLC v. National Labor Relations Board
Adam Elend v. Sun Dome, Inc.
Badier
Jarvy Arlex Posada-Lopez v. U.S. Atty. General
Professional Employer Plans, Inc. v. Leading Edge Ins. Group, Inc.
David King v. Nation Union Fire Insurance Co.
Heritage Corp. of S. Fl v. National Union Fire In.
Adams
John (Jimmy) Adams v. Chattooga County
Showing 1,101–1,150 of 1,504 rulings · Page 23 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.