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 1,632 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.
Of the 1,632 published rulings we track in the Fourth Circuit.
A workplace lawsuit moves through stages, and a ruling can end it at any of them. Here is where the 1,620 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 304 summary-judgment rulings here, 188 ended the case in the employer’s favor and 116 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 Fourth Circuit covers.
Hayes
Taylor
Feinberg
Lee v. Argent Trust Company
Michael Battle v. Lowell Mcadams
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Optimal Solutions & Technologies (OST, Inc.)
Mondragon
Knox v. Hooper's Crab House, Inc.
Coleman
Sellers
Lewis
Gittens
EEOC v. Baltimore County
Flores
Zatezalo
Amaya Diaz v. Pho Eatery, Inc.
EEOC v. M&T Bank
Government Employees Health Association v. Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Castillo
The Ohio Valley Coal Company v. United Mine Workers of America International Union
Taylor
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Spencer Gifts, LLC
Nikole Hunter v. Government Employees Insurance
The Monongalia County Coal Company v. United Mine Workers of America, International Union
London
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Appalachian Power Company
Allen
The Monongalia County Coal Company v. United Mine Workers of America, International Union
Trustees of the Ironworkers Local Union No. 16 Pension Plan v. Ole Men & Sons, LLC
Trustees of the Iron Workers Local Union No. 5 and Iron Workers Employers Association Employee Pension Trust v. Moxy Misc. Metals, LLC
The Harrison County Coal Company v. United Mine Workers of America, International Union
Milo
Johnson v. Helion Technologies, Inc.
Su, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. Medical Staffing of America, LLC
EEOC v. M&T Bank
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 77 v. DUKE UNIVERSITY
The Monongalia County Coal Company v. United Mine Workers of America, International Union
Jones
Alton Adams v. David Pritchard
Skibo
BOUFFARD
United Mine Workers of America International Union v. The Monongalia County Coal Company
Envi-El
McBride
Badalato
Bills
Escobar
Membreno
Laster
Holden
Showing 701–750 of 1,632 rulings · Page 15 of 33
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.