Employment Rulings in the First Circuit
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 1,014 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.
How These Rulings Ended
Of the 1,014 published rulings we track in the First 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 996 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 194 summary-judgment rulings here, 111 ended the case in the employer’s favor and 83 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
- Abbott Laboratories9
- United States Postal Service7
- Abbott Laboratories, Inc.7
- Raytheon Company7
- First Union National Bank7
- Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada5
States in This Circuit
Browse rulings from courts in each state the First Circuit covers.
Recent Rulings in the First Circuit
PAPKEE
Hall
Rivera
LOWE
Pineda v. Skinner Services, Inc.
TOURANGEAU
OUELLETTE
U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Secretary of Labor v. P Unitil Service Corp.
US Department of Labor, Secretary of Labor v. Unitil Service Corporation
McKnight V. Honeywell Safety Products Inc.
Adams
Adams
BELL v. O'REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES LLC
Host
Caniglia
Adam Veinotte v. Milford DCH, Inc. d/b/a DCH Toyota of Milford
The General Hospital Corporation v. Esoterix Genetic Laboratories, LLC
Trustees of the Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 17 Insurance Fund v. Phils HVAC, Inc.
Owens
El Curragh v. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Echavarria
United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC v. National Grid
Asantewaa
Mullane
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Limenos Corporation
Hospital de la Concepcion v. Unidad Laboral de Enfermeras(os) y Empleados de la Salud
Hatch
Morales Posada v. Cultural Care, Inc.
Union Internacional, UAW Local v. Bacardi Corporation
Rosado-Pagan
Pearl
Mirakl, Incorporated v. VTEX Commerce Cloud Solutions LLC
Rose
Paige
Martin
Robles-Figueroa
Guevara Ortiz v. Union Independiente de Empleados Telefonicos
Staples
Gunter
JOY
Khan
Efreom
Menninger
PAPKEE
White
Solari
Rosario Ramos v. Municipality of Rio Grande
Weissman
John R Wade v. Tri -Wire Employee Stock Option Trust
Gonzalez-Bermudez
Showing 301–350 of 1,014 rulings · Page 7 of 21
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.