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
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Central Wholesalers, Inc.
Muffley Ex Rel. NLRB v. Spartan Mining Co.
National Union Fire Insurance v. Porter Hayden Co.
Merck & Co. v. International Chemical Workers Union Council of the United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 94C
North Carolina Growers' Association, Inc. v. Solis
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Thompson Contracting
Hilgeford
Hilgeford
Continental
Fiorani
Fiorani
King
Desmond
Media General Operations, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
Whitt
Shepherd
Howell
Howell
Howell
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Baltimore County
Merritt
Public Employees' Retirement Ass'n v. Deloitte & Touche LLP
Evans
Houston v. URS Corp.
Platone
Knox v. United States Department of Labor
Gorski
United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Worthington, Moore & Jacobs, Inc.
Smithfield Foods, Inc. v. United Food & Commercial Workers International Union
Bethea
Bethea
Sawada
Sawada
Martinez-Hernandez
Saadalla
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Branch Banking & Trust Co.
National Labor Relations Board v. B.A. Mullican Lumber & Manufacturing Co.
Timmins Ex Rel. National Labor Relations Board v. Narricot Industries, L.P.
Grose
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Nucletron Corp.
Evergreen America Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board
Collum
Williams v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CITY OF RALEIGH
Adams
Stevens
Union Ins. Co. v. SOLEIL GROUP, INC.
UFCW
Adams
Morriss
Morriss
Showing 1,351–1,400 of 1,919 rulings · Page 28 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.