Employment Rulings in the Federal Circuit
The Federal Circuit is different from the regional circuits: instead of covering a group of states, it hears certain federal-employee workplace appeals from across the country — for example, cases appealed from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), the agency that reviews federal-employee discipline and firing disputes.
Of the 75 published rulings we track here (2000–2026), 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 75 published rulings we track in the Federal 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 75 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 1 summary-judgment rulings here, 1 ended the case in the employer’s favor and 0 let the worker’s claims continue.
Top Claim Types
Top Employers
- U.S. Department of Labor5
- United States Postal Service3
- Abbott Laboratories3
- Cascades Canada Ulc2
- Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.2
- National Credit Union Administration2
Recent Rulings in the Federal Circuit
Tavakkol v. MSPB
Genentech, Inc. v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc.
Stewart
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.
Adasa Inc. v. Avery Dennison Corporation
Tucker
Realtime Adaptive Streaming v. Netflix, Inc.
Sling Tv, L.L.C. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming
Mylan Laboratories Ltd. v. Janssen Pharmaceutica, N.V.
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v. 10x Genomics Inc.
Essity Hygiene and Health Ab v. Cascades Canada Ulc
Essity Professional Hygiene v. Cascades Canada Ulc
Feuer
Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs., LLC
Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs., LLC
Sanofi Mature Ip v. Mylan Laboratories Limited
Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc.
01 Communique Laboratory, Inc v. Citrix Online, LLC
Bryant v. Merit Systems Protection Board
Emerachem Holdings, LLC v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Adams
Cloud Farm Associates LP v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Acevedo
Adams
Hare
Berlin
Ferring B v. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc.
Boyd
Asatov
Tierney v. Department of Justice
Janssen Pharmaceuticals v. Watson Laboratories
Warner Chilcott Laboratories Ireland Ltd. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Radar Industries, Inc. v. Cleveland Die & Manufacturing Co.
Creative Compounds, Llc. v. Starmark Laboratories
Perrigo
Lodge
Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, Inc. v. Perrigo Co.
Novo Nordisk A/S v. Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd.
Adams
Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings v. Metabolite Laboratories, Inc.
Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services
Bayer Schering Pharma AG v. Barr Laboratories, Inc.
Erickson v. United States Postal Service
Adamsen
Abbott Laboratories v. Sandoz, Inc.
Deleonardo
Innogenetics, N v. v. Abbott Laboratories
Adang
Dolby Laboratories v. Lucent Technologies
Adair
Showing 1–50 of 75 rulings · Page 1 of 2
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.