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
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Riverview Animal Clinic, P.C.
Robin Odum v. Government Employees Insurance Co.
Sanderson
Office Depot, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance
In Re Suntrust Banks, Inc. Erisa Litigation
Mitchell v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.
Gleason
Brown
Kirby's Spectrum Collision, Inc. v. Government Employees Insurance
Adams
Jones
Corporate America Credit Union v. Rubin Brown LLP
Wrestlereunion, LLC v. Live Nation, Inc.
Coton
Anthony L. Thomas v. Pentagon Federal Credit Union
Barrs
Quail Cruises Ship Management Ltd. v. Agencia De Viagens CVC Tur Limitada
Washington v. School Board of Hillsborough County
Andrews
Hillcrest Property, LLP v. Pasco County
Rando
Agrico Canada Ltd. v. Helm Fertilizer Corp.
Michael Gale v. U.S. Department of Labor
Ellison v. United States Department of Labor
Anthony Ellison v. US Department of Labor
Continental Casualty Co. v. First Financial Employee Leasing, Inc.
Bacon
Shaw
Maples
Henry Craig Pride v. Laboratory Corp. of America
Lenin Adali Rodas Alfaro v. U.S. Attorney General
Cox Communications, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance
Gutman
Sanford
Scott A. McDonald v. Redstone Federal Credit Union
In Re ING Groep, NV Erisa Litigation
Wilborn
Billingslea
Betkowski
Bryant
Adams
White
Lewis v. U.S. Department of Labor, Administrative Review Board
Roland Allen v. US EEOC Office
Parrilla
Heritage Corp. of South Florida v. National Union
Jarvis M. Adams v. Stiles A. Kellett, Jr.
Bacon
Gawin v. Princess Cruise Lines LTD.
Saridakis v. South Broward Hospital District
Showing 1,251–1,300 of 1,807 rulings · Page 26 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.