Skip to main content

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.

Defendant Win
397 (54%)
Plaintiff Win
117 (16%)
Dismissed
75 (10%)
Mixed Result
74 (10%)
Remanded
55 (8%)
Settlement
12 (2%)

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.

Appeal
336 (46%)

A higher court reviewing an earlier decision. Many published opinions come from this stage, after a lot has already happened in the case.

Summary judgment
182 (25%)

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.

Motion to dismiss
159 (22%)

An early request — usually by the employer — to throw the case out before any evidence is gathered.

Trial verdict
25 (3%)

A judge or jury heard the evidence and reached a decision. Relatively few disputes get this far.

Settlement / consent decree
12 (2%)

The two sides resolved the dispute by agreement, sometimes with court approval. Most settlements are private and never show up in published opinions.

Default judgment
8 (1%)

A decision entered because one side did not respond to the case at all.

Other rulings
6 (1%)

Procedural decisions and orders that do not fit the main stages above.

States in This Circuit

Browse rulings from courts in each state the Fifth Circuit covers.

Recent Rulings in the Fifth Circuit

Arthur H. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CIGNA FINANCIAL ADVISORS, INC., Et Al., Defendants-Appellants

Jun 19, 19955th CircuitRemanded

Lloyd SWITZER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Defendant-Appellant

May 12, 19955th CircuitDefendant Win

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Chemtech International Corp.

Apr 5, 1995S.D. Tex.Defendant Win

Donald J. CHAILLAND, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BROWN & ROOT, INC., Defendant-Appellant

Feb 23, 19955th CircuitPlaintiff Win

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Shoney's, Inc., D/B/A Fifth Quarter Restaurants

Aug 18, 19945th CircuitDefendant Win

Bowers

Aug 11, 1994W.D. Tex.Mixed Result

Jackson v. Liberty County

Jul 26, 1994E.D. Tex.Defendant Win

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellant, Cross-Appellee, v. BAILEY FORD, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Cross-Appellant

Jul 21, 19945th CircuitDefendant Win

EEOC v. Clear Lake Dodge

Jun 24, 19945th CircuitMixed Result

Dailey

May 11, 1994N.D. Tex.Defendant Win

Switzer

May 3, 1994N.D. Tex.Defendant Win

Aldridge

Feb 1, 1994S.D. Miss.Defendant Win

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. General Dynamics Corp., Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. General Dynamics Corporation

Aug 30, 19935th CircuitRemanded

Bernard

Aug 19, 1993E.D. Tex.Defendant Win

KRAL, INC., D/B/A Ed’s Automatic Transmission Service, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SOUTHWESTERN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee

Aug 16, 19935th CircuitDefendant Win

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Louisiana Network, Inc.

Dec 16, 1992M.D. La.Defendant Win

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Olson's Dairy Queens, Inc.

Jul 12, 1991S.D. Tex.Defendant Win

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kerrville Bus Co.

Mar 4, 19915th CircuitDefendant Win

Tarka

Mar 23, 1990W.D. Tex.Dismissed

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Southern Publishing Co., Inc.

Feb 23, 19905th CircuitDefendant Win

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MISSISSIPPI STATE TAX COMMISSION, Defendant-Appellee

Jun 21, 19885th CircuitPlaintiff Win

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Allstate Insurance

Sep 9, 1983S.D. Miss.Defendant Win

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MAGNOLIA ELECTRIC POWER ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellee

Jan 26, 19815th CircuitRemanded

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

Jan 18, 1980N.D. Tex.Plaintiff Win

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Southwest Texas Methodist Hospital

Sep 4, 19795th CircuitRemanded

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Lockheed Electronics Co.

Nov 20, 1978S.D. Tex.Defendant Win

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Parish Water Work's Co.

May 10, 1976E.D. La.Defendant Win

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HUTTIG SASH & DOOR COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee

Apr 10, 19755th CircuitPlaintiff Win

Dr. N. Jay ROGERS Et Al., Petitioners-Appellees, v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Respondent-Appellant

Jan 31, 19725th CircuitPlaintiff Win

South Central Bell Telephone Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Jan 21, 1970E.D. La.Plaintiff Win

Showing 701–730 of 730 rulings · Page 15 of 15

Browse Other Circuits

Explore employment rulings from the other federal circuits.

Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

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.