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.
Morris
Gaddis
Roberts
Todd
Poulson
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Teleservices Marketing Corp.
Beavers
Turner
Turner
McNabney
Harris Methodist Fort Worth v. Sales Support Services Inc. Employee Health Care Plan
Haley
Moore
Kendall
Riverwood International Corp. v. Employers Insurance
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Paper, Allied-Industrial Chemical & Energy Workers International Union, Local 4-12
Untd Tchr Assoc Ins v. Un Labor Life Ins Co
Riverwood Intern. Corp. v. Employers Ins. of Wausau
AFGE
Bourg
Laredo Road Co. v. Maverick County, Texas
Johnson v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Texas
United Teacher Associates Insurance v. Union Labor Life Insurance
Hood
Employers Mutual Casualty Co. v. Lennox International, Inc.
U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co.
Walker
Poulson
Christiason
Torrez
Lamar Co. v. National Labor Relations Board
Acosta
Convenience Food Systems, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
Beaird Industries, Inc. v. Local 2297, International Union
Eliserio
Gulf Rice Arkansas, LLC v. Union Pacific Railroad
National Labor Relations Board v. Superior Protection, Inc.
Bourgeois
Adams
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. TXI Operations, L.P.
Eeoc v. Txi Operations, Lp
United States ex rel. King v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc.
CPWH Residential Ltd. v. Union Planters Bank, NA (In Re CPWH Residential Ltd.)
Independent Coca-Cola Employees' Union v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co. United, Inc.
American Employers' Insurance v. Eagle, Inc.
Mowdy
Brazoria County v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Gerhold
In re Electronic Data Systems Corp. "Erisa" Litigation
American Federation of Government Employees Local 1 v. Stone
Showing 1,051–1,100 of 1,495 rulings · Page 22 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.