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
Texas City Metal Trades Council v. Union Carbide Corp.
Sanders
Local Union No. 898 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. XL Electric, Inc.
Local 107 Office & Professional Employees International Union v. Offshore Logistics, Inc.
Rivera
Williamson
National Labor Relations Board v. Superior Protection, Inc.
Igbokwe
Smith v. Transport Workers Union, Air Transport Local 556
Rothe Development Corp. v. U.S. Department of Defense
American Federation of Government Employees v. Federal Labor Relations Authority
Amer Fed Govt Empl v. Fed Labor Relations
Tri-State Health Service, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
Anglin
Bennett
Van Court v. American Postal Workers Union, New Orleans Local 83
Tucker
Barton
Bourgault
L'Atrium on the Creek I v. NAT. UNION FIRE INS. CO. OF PITTSBURGH, PA
In Re: Tetra Applied
Archer
United Teacher Associates Insurance v. Union Labor Life Insurance
Gilbreath
EEOC v. Wynell Inc
EEOC v. Wynell Inc
McDonald
In Re Dynegy, Inc. ERISA Litigation
National Union Fire Insurance v. U.S. Liquids, Inc.
Reynolds
Vizena
Bourgeois
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Dunbar Diagnostic Services Inc.
EEOC v. Dunbar Diagnostic
Adams
McMahon Foundation v. Amerada Hess Corp.
McMahon Foundation v. Amerada Hess
McMahon Foundation v. Amerada Hess
Adams
Adams
Yaquinto
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Commercial Coating Service, Inc.
Chen
Adair
In Re Electronic Data Systems Corp." Erisa" Lit.
In Re Reliant Energy ERISA Litigation
Chao
Facility Insurance v. Employers Insurance
Shegog
Adams
Showing 1,301–1,350 of 1,704 rulings · Page 27 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.