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 174 published rulings we track here (1987–2026), 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 174 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 174 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 2 summary-judgment rulings here, 1 ended the case in the employer’s favor and 1 let the worker’s claims continue.
Procedural decisions and orders that do not fit the main stages above.
Top Claim Types
Top Employers
- United States Postal Service12
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission7
- U.S. Department of Labor6
- Netflix, Inc.3
- Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd.3
- Merit Systems Protection Board3
Recent Rulings in the Federal Circuit
Tavakkol v. MSPB
Hamill v. Collins
Holstein v. Collins
Natera, Inc. v. Neogenomics Laboratories, Inc.
Natera, Inc. v. Neogenomics Laboratories, Inc.
Genentech, Inc. v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc.
Stewart
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.
Estrada
Adasa Inc. v. Avery Dennison Corporation
Adasa Inc. v. Avery Dennison Corporation
Tucker
Tucker
Realtime Adaptive Streaming v. Netflix, Inc.
Realtime Adaptive Streaming v. Netflix, Inc.
Google LLC v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Sigmapharm Laboratories
Sling Tv, L.L.C. v. Realtime Adaptive Streaming
Mylan Laboratories Ltd. v. Janssen Pharmaceutica, N.V.
Adaptive Streaming Inc. v. Netflix, Inc.
Chan
Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. v. 10x Genomics Inc.
Essity Hygiene and Health Ab v. Cascades Canada Ulc
Essity Professional Hygiene v. Cascades Canada Ulc
Galderma Laboratories, L.P. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC
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
CF CRESPE LLC v. Silicon Laboratories Inc.
Emerachem Holdings, LLC v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Adams
McInnis v. Department of Education
Cloud Farm Associates LP v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
CF Crespe LLC v. Silicon Laboratories Inc.
Acevedo
Adams
Core Laboratories LP v. Spectrum Tracer Services, L.L.C.
Macrosolve, Inc. v. Government Employees Insurance
Hare
Beriont
Berlin
Ferring B v. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc.
Boyd
Alcon Research, Ltd. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc.
Asatov
Showing 1–50 of 174 rulings · Page 1 of 4
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.