Employment Rulings in the Fourth Circuit
The Fourth Circuit covers the federal courts in Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia. The rulings below come from the circuit's court of appeals and the federal trial courts within it.
Of the 829 published rulings we track here (1976–2026), 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 829 published rulings we track in the Fourth 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 825 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 159 summary-judgment rulings here, 112 ended the case in the employer’s favor and 47 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
States in This Circuit
Browse rulings from courts in each state the Fourth Circuit covers.
Recent Rulings in the Fourth Circuit
Delsonya Wilkins-Bailey v. Essity Professional Hygiene North America, LLC
Christopher Billesdon v. Wells Fargo Securities, LLC
Eddie Stewart v. GES Recycling South Carolina LLC
Ibrahima Dieng v. Orkin, LLC
Mark Lee v. West Virginia University Medical Corporation
John Doe 1 v. Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Don Gordon v. William Heath
Maan Aljizzani v. Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Inc.
Steven Isaac v. Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Inc.
Thomas Overby, Jr. v. Anheuser-Busch, LLC
James Mebane v. GKN Driveline North America, Inc.
Jeremy Skidmore v. Michael Schinke
Beatrice Johnson v. Tanya Adams
Lorraine Austin v. INOVA Health Care Services
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Gary Pisner
Garten Trucking LC v. NLRB
NLRB v. Garten Trucking LC
Osvaldo Figueroa v. Butterball, LLC
Josefa Catalan Adame v. Pamela Bondi
Ramos
Frederic Washington v. Virginia Union University
Wolff
Gregory Hanna v. United States Department of Labor
Effland
Norris
Millhouse
Williams v. Navy Federal Credit Union
Comcast Corporation v. United States Department Of Labor
McKay
Claridy
Harrison
Adade
Brunson
West
Peters
Garcia Menjivar v. Nova Shotcrete and Concrete, Inc.
Longbreak
Harrison
Grier
Hobson
Goble
Kiver, Ph.D. v. Federal Business Council, Inc.
Kelly
Bobb
Siatkowski
Gomez Martinez v. Crystal Jewelry Clinton, Inc.
Franco Jurado v. Bottoms Up Gentlemen's Club, LLC
Fortner
Goddard
Arnold
Showing 1–50 of 829 rulings · Page 1 of 17
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.