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
Tierney v. Department of Justice
Novo Nordisk A/S v. Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd.
Bone Care International LLC v. Roxane Laboratories Inc.
Janssen Pharmaceuticals v. Watson Laboratories
Novo Nordisk A/s v. Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd.
Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. v. Cadbury Adams USA LLC
Hoffman-La Roche Inc. v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc.
Rochester Drug Co-Operatice, Inc. v. Braintree Laboratories, Inc.
Warner Chilcott Laboratories Ireland Ltd. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Adams Arms, Inc. v. Sig Sauer Inc.
McNair
Novo Nordisk v. Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories
Reckitt Benckiser Inc. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc. - Florida
Adair
Abbott Laboratories v. Bayer Healthcare LLC
Novo Nordisk A/s v. Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd.
Radar Industries, Inc. v. Cleveland Die & Manufacturing Co.
Estrada
Estrada
Bio-Mimetics, Inc. v. Columbia Laboratories, Inc.
Creative Compounds, Llc. v. Starmark Laboratories
Perrigo
Astrazeneca AB v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd.
Hoang
Hoang
Lodge
Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, Inc. v. Perrigo Co.
Creative Compounds, LLC v. Starmark Laboratories
International Union of Operating Engineers v. National Labor Relations Board
Novo Nordisk A/S v. Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd.
Adams
Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings v. Metabolite Laboratories, Inc.
Laboratory Corp. of America Holdings v. Metabloite Laboratories, Inc.
I4I v. Microsoft
Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services
Adams
Honrada
Honrada
Honrada
Bayer Schering Pharma AG v. Barr Laboratories, Inc.
Everett Laboratories, Inc. v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc.
Erickson v. United States Postal Service
Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Mylan Laboratories Inc.
Adamsen
Adams
Adams
Adams
Estrada
Abbott Laboratories v. Sandoz, Inc.
Former Employees of Ibm Corp. v. Sec. Of Labor
Showing 51–100 of 174 rulings · Page 2 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.