The First Circuit covers the federal courts in Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Puerto Rico. The rulings below come from the circuit's court of appeals and the federal trial courts within it.
Of the 784 published rulings we track here (1980–2026), the breakdowns below show how they were decided. They describe published opinions only — not the odds of any particular situation.
Of the 784 published rulings we track in the First Circuit.
A workplace lawsuit moves through stages, and a ruling can end it at any of them. Here is where the 777 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 193 summary-judgment rulings here, 107 ended the case in the employer’s favor and 86 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.
Browse rulings from courts in each state the First Circuit covers.
Kittel v. First Union Mortgage Corporation
Spickler
Terradata, Inc. v. Budget Rent-A-Car International Inc.
Sullivan
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Division of Employment & Training v. Boston Regional Medical Center, Inc. (In re Boston Regional Medical Center, Inc.)
QST
Toledo v. Puerto Rico Labor & Human Resources Dept.
Karen Lynn Bienkowski, David Eberle, Delia Ann Hoye and Edward McDonald v. Northeastern University
Greenier
D'AMICO
Paquin
National Labor Relations Board v. Goodless Bros. Electric Co.
Adams
Brigham
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Unión Independiente De La Autoridad De Acueductos Y Alcantarillados
Green
Haines
Poland Spring Corp. v. Local 1445, United Food & Commercial Workers Union
Garcia
New England Health Care Employees Union, District 1199 v. Rhode Island Legal Services
Gough
Graphic Communications International Union v. Quebecor Printing Providence, Inc.
Unidad Laboral De Enfermeras(OS) Y Empleados De La Salud (ULEES) v. Hospital De Damas, Inc.
Briones
Celia G. Zimmerman v. Direct Federal Credit Union and David Breslin
Brawn
Hospital Del Maestro v. National Labor Relations Board
Adames
Manno
Ryan Iron Works, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
White
National Labor Relations Board v. Samuel Bent, LLC
Gerard
Daley
Corrada-Betances
Cohen
Commercial Union Ins. v. North American Paper Co.
Bath Iron Works Corp. v. Director, Office of Workers Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor
Members First Federal Credit Union, Louisville, Ky, Cross v. Members First Credit Union of Florida
Vlass
Posadas
Intercity Maintenance Co. v. Local 254, Service Employees International Union
Mauser
FLRA
Mauser v. Raytheon Co. Pension Plan for Salaried Employees
Regional
Fiori
Lorenc
Snow
Puerto Rico Telephone Co. v. UNION INDEPENDIENTE DE EMPLEADOS TELEFONICOS
Showing 651–700 of 784 rulings · Page 14 of 16
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.