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.
Adam Davis v. SVC Manufacturing, Inc.
Union Pump Co. v. Centrifugal Technology, Inc., et
Great Southern Oil & Gas Co. v. Director, Office of Worker's Compensation Programs, U.S. Department of Labor
Udoewa
United Steel Workers International Union v. Asarco Inc. (In Re Asarco L.L.C.)
Comb
James Farris v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.
Dean
Dupre v. Employee Benefit Services of Louisiana, Inc.
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. IESI Louisiana Corp.
National Union Fire Insurance v. Puget Plastics Corp.
Tomdra Investments, LLC v. CoStar Realty Information, Inc.
Guadalupe Munoz v. Eric Holder, Jr.
Bonilla
Quirino Estrada v. Eric Holder, Jr.
CareFlite
Crowley
Louis Adams v. Chevron USA, Inc.
National Labor Relations Board v. Coastal Cargo Co.
Bentonite
Pedigo
FEMA
Riley v. School Board Union Parish
First Bank & Trust v. Employers Mutual Casualty Co.
Craven
REUNION, INC. v. Federal Aviation Administration
Drummond American, LLC v. Share Corp.
Folger Coffee Company v. International Union, et a
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Air Liquide USA LLC
TradeArbed Inc v. Medi Trader MV
Franks Investment Co. LLC v. Union Pacific Railroad
Trinity Universal Insurance v. Employers Mutual Casualty Co.
ESN, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.
Illinois Central Railroad v. Harried
Alaniz
Hoog-Watson
Agee v. WAYNE FARMS LLC
Miller v. Blattner
National Labor Relations Board v. Seaport Printing & AD Specialties, Inc.
Maynor v. Dow Chemical Co.
Pedigo v. 3003 SOUTH LAMAR, LLP
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Sfaila, LLC
Adams
Harris v. Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Altimari
Bivens
McMurray
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Exxon Mobil Corp.
National Union Fire Insurance v. Puget Plastics Corp.
Clarke
Showing 851–900 of 1,495 rulings · Page 18 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.