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
KADEL
MacBagito
Baylor
Webb
Doe
Vertellus Holdings LLC v. W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn.
Kenan
Scott
Trustees of the Iron Workers Local Union No. 5 and Iron Workers Employers Association Employee Pension Trust v. Facade Install Operating Co., D.C., Inc.
Rogers v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plaintif of Mid-Atlantic States, Inc.
Hart
Terracon Consultants Inc v. Insight Group LLC
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Spencer Gifts, LLC
PRICE
Wedderburn
Ramadan
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.
Brooks
Trump
CVS
Williams v. South Carolina Workers Compensation Commission
Trustees of the Ironworkers Local Union No. 16 Pension Plan v. Bryant Concrete Construction, Inc.
Crisell Seguin v. US Department of Labor
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. 1618 CONCEPTS, INC.
IHS Global Limited v. Trade Data Monitor LLC
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Dolgencorp, LLC
EEOC v. M&T Bank
Carbaugh
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Spencer Gifts, LLC
Hayes
Feinberg
Lee v. Argent Trust Company
Michael Battle v. Lowell Mcadams
Sloan
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Optimal Solutions & Technologies (OST, Inc.)
Knox v. Hooper's Crab House, Inc.
Coleman
Sellers
Lewis
Gittens
EEOC v. Baltimore County
Zatezalo
Amaya Diaz v. Pho Eatery, Inc.
EEOC v. M&T Bank
Government Employees Health Association v. Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Rouse
Castillo
Walker
The Ohio Valley Coal Company v. United Mine Workers of America International Union
Taylor
Showing 901–950 of 1,919 rulings · Page 19 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.