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 1,919 published rulings we track here (1973–2026), 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 1,919 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 1,893 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 305 summary-judgment rulings here, 200 ended the case in the employer’s favor and 105 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
James Mebane v. GKN Driveline North America, Inc.
American Federation of State, County and Municipal v. SSA
Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation v. John McCuskey
Jeremy Skidmore v. Michael Schinke
Ruben Palazzo v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC
Anna Rhodes v. Navy Federal Credit Union
Suhail Al Shimari v. CACI Premier Technology, Inc.
Shauntae Anderson v. William Crouch
Beatrice Johnson v. Tanya Adams
Wilson Ochar v. Apple Federal Credit Union
Lorraine Austin v. INOVA Health Care Services
Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Gary Pisner
Hadarou Sare v. Christina Nikiforidou
Garten Trucking LC v. NLRB
NLRB v. Garten Trucking LC
Monroe
Weldon Holtzclaw, Jr. v. John Doe 1 Spinx Employee
Osvaldo Figueroa v. Butterball, LLC
Moreno
Moreno
Babb
Wooten
Josefa Catalan Adame v. Pamela Bondi
Hadarou Sare v. Central Collection Unit
Tamika Pless v. State Employees' Credit Union
Infrastructure and Energy Alternatives, Inc. on its own behalf and as Plan Administrator and Fiduciary of Infrastructure and Energy Alternatives, Inc. Employee Benefit Plan v. AXIM FRINGE SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC, et al.
Ansell
Rowand
Choi
Redwine
Love
Nwankpah
Burton
Hinton
Ramos
Muwahid
West
Christopher Rogers v. Safe Federal Credit Union
Frederic Washington v. Virginia Union University
Deitch
Kitzman
Jong Lee v. Agape Health Management, Inc.
Garcia
Banks
Coleman
Bradshaw
Schrof
Bey
Adetu
Showing 1–50 of 1,919 rulings · Page 1 of 39
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.