Employment Rulings in the Fifth Circuit
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 730 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.
How These Rulings Ended
Of the 730 published rulings we track in the Fifth 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 728 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 182 summary-judgment rulings here, 140 ended the case in the employer’s favor and 42 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
- Union Pacific Railroad Company19
- Exxon Mobil Corporation5
- Employers Insurance of Wausau5
- Union Pacific Railroad Company, Inc.4
- Creative Vision Resources, L.L.C.4
- United Parcel Service, Inc.3
States in This Circuit
Browse rulings from courts in each state the Fifth Circuit covers.
Recent Rulings in the Fifth Circuit
La Gloria Oil & Gas v. NLRB
Nunn, Yoest, Prin v. Union Pacific Corp
General Warehousemen & Helpers Union Local 767 v. Albertson's Distribution, Inc.
NLRB v. Albis Plastics
AXA S.A. v. Union Pacific Railroad
Reliant Energy Services, Inc. v. Enron Canada Corp.
NLRB v. Gallup Inc
Raven Services Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board
NLRB v. Colburn Electric Co
Newsome
Ehrhardt
Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada v. Sheila Richardson v. Diana James
Willis
Moses Elec Svc Inc v. NLRB
Giunta
Gant
Baton Rouge Oil & Chemical Workers Union v. ExxonMobil Corp.
Reynolds
Georgen-Saad
MS Power Company v. NLRB
BMWE
Escamilla
Ingram
Pace Union, Local 4-1 v. BP PIPELINES (N. AMERICA)
Callahan
Rivera
Rivera v. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories
Woodard
Vance
Yvonne E. Vance v. Union Planters Corp., Union Planters Bank, N.A.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance
EEOC v. So Farm Bur Cas Ins
Adamik
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Palafox Hospitality, Ltd.
Brown
Northwinds Abatement v. Employers Ins Wausau
Myers
Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
Chao
Moreno-Estrada
Cousin
Classroom Teachers of Dallas v. Dallas Independent School District
Valmont Industries v. NLRB
Jinks
Blakeney
Valmont Industries, Inc., Petitioner-Cross-Respondent v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent-Cross-Petitioner
Middleton
Baker
Paris
Adams
Showing 601–650 of 730 rulings · Page 13 of 15
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.