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
Rainey
Bolen
EEOC v. Bobrich Enterprises
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Board of Supervisors
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Agro Distribution, LLC
Smith v. American Postal Workers Union
Quezada
In Re Gni Group, Inc.
United States Ex Rel. Cassaday v. KBR, Inc.
Nautilus Insurance v. Pacific Employers Insurance
Wabash National Trailer Centers Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance
Paul
BNSF Railway Co. v. Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees
BNSF Railway Co. v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers & Trainmen
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. General Motors Corp.
Lopez-Baca
National Union Fire Insurance v. Mississippi Insurance Guaranty Ass'n
Bally's Park Place, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
Bally's Park Place, Inc. v. NLRB
Amerada Hess Corp. v. Director, Office of Worker's Compensation Programs
Dumas
Dear
Dada
Kane
Franks Inv. Co., LLC v. Union Pacific R. Co.
Franks Investment Co., LLC v. Union Pacific Railroad
Lozada
In Re Dell, Inc. ERISA Litigation
Hernandez
In Re Texas Ezpawn Fair Labor Standards Act Lit.
Jones
CGLM Inc v. NLRB
CGLM Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
Trinity Universal Insurance v. Employers Mutual Casualty Co.
Board of Trustees New Orleans Employers International Longshoremen's Ass'n v. Gabriel, Roeder, Smith & Co.
Crocker
Advocare International, LP v. Horizon Laboratories, Inc.
Zamora
El Paso Electric Co. v. National Labor Relations Board
Schexnayder
In Re RadioShack Corp. ERISA Litigation
Rainey
Moore
Stone v. Unocal Termination Allowance Plan
Robinson
Read
Haymon
Gonzalez
Texada
Frawley
Showing 1,101–1,150 of 1,704 rulings · Page 23 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.