The Fifth Circuit covers the federal courts in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. The rulings below come from the circuit's court of appeals and the federal trial courts within it.
Of the 1,495 published rulings we track here (1970–2026), the breakdowns below show how they were decided. They describe published opinions only — not the odds of any particular situation.
Of the 1,495 published rulings we track in the Fifth Circuit.
A workplace lawsuit moves through stages, and a ruling can end it at any of them. Here is where the 1,488 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 337 summary-judgment rulings here, 213 ended the case in the employer’s favor and 123 let the worker’s claims continue; the rest resolved in other ways.
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.
Browse rulings from courts in each state the Fifth Circuit covers.
Mun. Employees' Ret. Sys. of Mich. v. Pier 1 Imports, Inc.
Burns
Poole
Valenzuela
Taboada A. v. AmFirst Insurance Company
Thomas
Traylor
Dunn
Michael Faciane v. Sun Life Asuc Co. of Canada
Matson v. Sanderson Farms, Inc.
Lindsey
Johnson v. Trans Union L L C
Duggan
Rule
LABR
Brooks
Thomas
Mark Estrada v. Anita Limon
Adam Joseph Resources v. CNA Metals Limited
Oceans Healthcare, L. L.C. v. Ill. Union Ins. Co.
Adam Joseph Res. (M) Sdn. Bhd. v. Cna Metals Ltd.
Quianna Canada v. Texas Mutual Insurance Company
Gallo
Carter
Badeaux
Sw. Airlines Co. v. Local 555, Transp. Workers Union of Am. AFL-CIO
Joseph Blimline v. Thirty Unknown Employees
John Thorne v. Union Pacific Corporation
Jackie Ladapo v. Target Stores, Incorporated
John M. O'Quinn, P.C. v. Natl Union Fire In
E. Drake v. Murphy Austin Adams Schoenfeld
Employees' Ret. Sys. of Haw. v. Whole Foods Mkt., Inc.
Voices for Int'l Bus. & Educ., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
Dish Network, L.L.C. v. NLRB
In-N-Out Burger, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
Kinard Ex Rel. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Dish Network Corp.
Evolve Fed. Credit Union v. Barragan-Flores (In re Barragan-Flores)
Nevada v. U.S. Dep't of Labor
Fernando Barraza v. King, UTMB Employee
Creative Vision Res., L.L.C. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
Cameron v. Greater New Orleans Federal Credit Union
DOWCP
Ricardo Adame v. Refugio County
Thorne
Cooper Industries, Ltd. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. BDO USA, L.L.P.
Anthony Griffin v. Amerada Petroleum Corpor
Graves v. Guadalupe Valley Regional Medical Center
Creative Vision Resources, LLC v. NLRB
Creative Vision Resources, L.L.C. v. National Labor Relations Board
Showing 601–650 of 1,495 rulings · Page 13 of 30
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.