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
Martinson v. Kinney Shoe Corp.
Baker
Natalie J. Ferguson v. Western Carolina Regional Sewer Authority, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Amicus Curiae
Martin
Health Care v. NLRB
Dow Jones v. NLRB
Montgomery Ward Co v. NLRB
Obiora E. Egbuna v. Time-Life Libraries, Incorporated, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Amicus Curiae
NLRB v. Pepsi Cola
Fournier Furniture v. NLRB
David L. Matthews, and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Eveready Battery Company, Incorporated
Riesbeck Food Market v. NLRB
NLRB v. AMFM of Summers Cnty
Southern Ohio Coal v. NLRB
Morgan
NLRB v. District 17, UMWA
NLRB v. White Oak Coal Co
Daniell
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kinney Shoe Corp.
Carol J. Derbis v. United States Shoe Corporation, Women's Speciality Retailing Group, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Amicus Curiae
18 Employee Benefits Cas. 2931, Pens. Plan Guide P 23,905 Delma C. Gentry v. Ashland Oil, Inc.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Lutheran Family Services
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Lutheran Family Services
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Watergate at Landmark Condominium
Richard L. Armstrong v. Lance, Incorporated, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Amicus Curiae
Newton
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Clay Printing Company
Pamela E. Long v. Ringling Bros.-Barnum & Bailey Combined Shows, Incorporated, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Amicus Curiae
Curtis L. Wrenn v. Donna Shalala, Secretary of Health and Human Services Evan J. Kemp, Chairman, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Evone Foreman Gibson v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Pizza Hut of Roanoke Rapids, Incorporated
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Northwest Structural Components, Inc.
David B. Stiles v. General Electric Company, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Amicus Curiae
Herbert Hayes v. Michael P.W. Stone, Secretary, Department of the Army, and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Marion Motel Associates, A/K/A Park Inn International
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN & EFIRD MILLS, INC., Defendant-Appellee
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Techalloy Maryland, Inc.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CLAY PRINTING COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Alfred Lee Downing v. Gilbert/robinson, Incorporated, T/a Darryl's
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American & Effird Mills, Inc.
Boyd E. Graves v. United States of America Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and Montgomery County (Md) Human Relations Commission Bidnet
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Service News Company
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Techalloy Maryland, Inc.
Harold Williams, and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Mallinckrodt, Inc.
General Electric Company v. Equal Employment Advisory Council
Dorosh (Helen v.e.) v. A.H. Robins Company, Incorporated
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Thurston Motor Lines, Inc.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Peterson, Howell & Heather, Inc.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Ithaca Industries, Inc.
Boyd E. Graves v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Baltimore District Office, Montgomery County (Md) Human Relations Commission
Showing 1,851–1,900 of 1,919 rulings · Page 38 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.