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 1,704 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 1,704 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 1,689 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 297 summary-judgment rulings here, 188 ended the case in the employer’s favor and 108 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.
Top Claim Types
States in This Circuit
Browse rulings from courts in each state the Fifth Circuit covers.
Recent Rulings in the Fifth Circuit
Doe
Brown
Serna
Taboada A. v. AmFirst Insurance Company
Hicks
Sanchez
Timpa
Serna
Smith v. Houston EEOC <b><font color="red">The Clerk will not accept any new pleading in this lawsuit filed by either Mr. Smith or Mr. Holloway in any alleged capacity requesting in forma pauperis status without prior approval.</b></font>
CIR
Williams v. Sake Hibachi Sushi & Bar Inc
Denton County Electric Coop v. NLRB
Hooge
Hills
Wright
Kalenga
United Association Local 198 Pension Fund v. Stevens Plumbing & Piping, LLC
Brown
Cole
Green
Yadav
Naghani
Eaves
Wile
Jennie Darrow v. Ingenesis Inc.
Prejean
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. T&T Subsea, LLC
Jostens, Inc. v. Hammons, Jr.
H&E Equipment Services, Inc. v. St. Germain
EEOC v. Vantage Drilling Company
Hernandez
Hardmon
Chisholm
Crescent City Surgical Centre v. Cigna Health And Life Insurance Company
Pierce
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. First Metropolitan Financial Services, Inc.
Volvo Group North America, LLC v. International Union United Automobile Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America
Welch
West
Dish Network Corporation v. NLRB
Dish Network Corporation v. NLRB
Labouliere
Anderson
IberiaBank Corporation v. Illinois Union Insurance
Denton County Electric Coop v. NLRB
Jackson v. Conifer Revenue Cycle Solutions, LLC
Hills
Building Materials Manufacturing Corporation v. United Steelworkers International Union on Behalf of its Local 00759
Yadav
LeBeau
Showing 651–700 of 1,704 rulings · Page 14 of 35
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.