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
Stone v. First Union Corp.
Waldinger Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board
NLRB v. Glades Health Care Center
National Labor Relations Board v. Glades Health Care Center
Wanda L. Adams v. Florida Power Corporation
Wanda L. Adams v. Florida Power Corporation
Mason v. Smithkline Beecham Clinical Laboratories
Moore
Alexander
Employers Insurance of Wausau v. Bright Metal Specialties, Inc.
Employers Insurance v. Bright Metal
Seals
Alpert
NLRB v. Gimrock Construction, Inc.
National Labor Relations Board v. Gimrock Construction
Demyan
Farrell
Hudson
Collis
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Joe's Stone Crab, Inc.
Edwards
Employers
Employers
NLRB v. LAMPI LLC
National Labor Relations Board v. Lampi LLC
Pryor
Chilton
Ruszala
Thomas H. Yochum v. Barnett Banks, Inc. Severance Pay Plan, Employee Benefits Committee of the Barnett Banks, Inc. Severance Pay Plan
Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, International
Wales
Adams
United States ex rel. Clausen v. Laboratory Corp. of America, Inc.
Adams v. Thiokol Corporation
Watkins
Story
Lambert
James F. Adams v. Thiokol Corporation
James F. Adams v. Thiokol Corporation
Canaday
Mays
Crawford
Deas
United Food & Commercial Workers Unions, Employers Health & Welfare Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc.
Lyons v. Georgia-Pacific Corp. Salaried Employees Retirement Plan
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Total System Services, Inc.
EEOC v. Total System Services, Inc.
EEOC v. Total System Services, Inc.
EEOC v. Total System Services, Inc.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Joe's Stone Crab, Inc.
Showing 1,601–1,650 of 1,807 rulings · Page 33 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.