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.
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.
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 182 summary-judgment rulings here, 140 ended the case in the employer’s favor and 42 let the worker’s claims continue.
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
Top Employers
- Union Pacific Railroad Company19
- Exxon Mobil Corporation5
- Employers Insurance of Wausau5
- Union Pacific Railroad Company, Inc.4
- Creative Vision Resources, L.L.C.4
- United Parcel Service, Inc.3
States in This Circuit
Browse rulings from courts in each state the Fifth Circuit covers.
Recent Rulings in the Fifth Circuit
Wright
United Association Local 198 Pension Fund v. Stevens Plumbing & Piping, LLC
Green
Yadav
Naghani
McGovern
Kittling
EEOC v. Vantage Drilling Company
Pierce
Volvo Group North America, LLC v. International Union United Automobile Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America
Welch
Shirley
IberiaBank Corporation v. Illinois Union Insurance
Spindle
Denton County Electric Coop v. NLRB
Bowen
USA v. BestCare Laboratory Services
Williams v. Huntington Ingalls Incorporated
Potseluyko
Vela
Jennifer Garcia v. Randolph-Brooks Federal Credit Union
Spriggs
Santa-Marina
Tarpeh
Nicole Quezada v. Bechtel OG & C Construction
De Valentino v. Houston Independent School District
Robert Edgar v. Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, et
Grant
Smith v. Metro Security, Inc.
Maxwell
Tingle
Derrick Davis v. Raymond Laborde Corrtl Center, et
Murphy v. Pine Belt Federal Credit Union
Ellis
Moody v. Associated Wholesale Grocers, Inc.
Holmes
Barry Badeaux v. BP Exploration & Prodn, Inc., et
Akbulut
Norred
Adams
Department of Labor v. Five Star Automatic Fire Protection, LLC
Lasley
Eugene v. International-Matex Tank Terminals LLC
Johnson v. VT Halter Marine, Inc.
Kaesemeyer
U.S. Equal Employment v. JC Wings Enterprises, L.L
Armstead
Bennett
Mun. Employees' Ret. Sys. of Mich. v. Pier 1 Imports, Inc.
Traylor
Showing 251–300 of 730 rulings · Page 6 of 15
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.