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. Asplundh Tree Expert Co.
Stone v. First Union Corp.
Iduoze
Boler
Lewis B. Freeman v. First Union National
Blaske
CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
Csx Transportation, Inc. v. Brotherhood Of Maintenance Of Way Employees
Continental Casualty Co. v. Barbara F. Adamo
Matthew v. EX REL. CRAIG v. v. DEKALB COUNTY SCHOOL SYSTEM
Neal H. Howard & Associates, P.C. v. Carey & Danis, LLC
Mangrum
Smith v. Health Center of Lake City, Inc.
Johnson ex rel. National Labor Relations Board v. Sunshine Piping, Inc.
Lawrence
Collier
Daniel Heimmerman v. First Union Mortgage Corp.
McDaniel
Andrew J. Wagner v. Daewoo Heavy Industries America Corporation, Jack Mosler, George Valencia, David O'dell, Donald Adams
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Joe's Stone Crabs, Inc.
Associated Rubber Co. v. National Labor Relations Board
Williamson
Olmsted
Antalan
Wilshin
United States Ex Rel. Clausen v. Laboratory Corp. of America, Inc.
Mehinovic
O'Halloran
Loskill v. Barnett Banks, Inc. Severance Pay Plan
Walton
Harris
Thrasher
Lyons
Kennedy v. Critical Intervention Services, Inc.
Climer
Combs
Carl A. Green v. Union Foundry
Heupel
Pastor
Segura
Bradford v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc.
Traylor
Samad Radamis Fahim v. U.S. Attorney General
Gonser
Wales
Serauskus
Hutson
Miami Area Local, American Postal Workers Union v. United States Postal Service
Dillon
Carter
Showing 1,551–1,600 of 1,807 rulings · Page 32 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.