Employment Rulings in the Ninth Circuit
The Ninth Circuit covers the federal courts in Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. The rulings below come from the circuit's court of appeals and the federal trial courts within it.
Of the 1,784 published rulings we track here (1976–2026), 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 1,784 published rulings we track in the Ninth 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 1,750 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 174 summary-judgment rulings here, 108 ended the case in the employer’s favor and 66 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 Ninth Circuit covers.
Recent Rulings in the Ninth Circuit
Ding v. Structure Therapeutics, Inc.
Krzesni v. Wellpinit School District
Weiss v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc.
Theis v. Intermountain Education Service District - Board of Directors
Combs v. Netflix, Inc.
Brown v. Alaska Airlines, Inc.
Cocom v. Abm Aviation, Inc.
American Federation of Government Employees, Afl-Cio v. Trump
Reges v. Cauce
Williams v. Legacy Health
Unite Here International Union v. Wilton Rancheria
Radnet Management, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
Karen Estrada-Payes v. Pamela Bondi
Trump
Nova Scotia Health Employees' Pension Plan v. Comerica Incorporated
Kalbers
Diamond Sands Apartments, LLC v. Clark County Nevada
Nevada Resort Association-International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Ma
Brown
Walker Specialty Constr., Inc. v. Bd. of Tr. of the Constr. Indus. and Laborers Joint Pension Trust
Employees at the Clark County Government Center and or on Its Property v. Monsanto Company
Las Vegas Sands, LLC v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa
Oakland County Voluntary Employees' Beneficiary Association v. Tesla Inc.
Almanza-Adame
Lanyice Delay v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. et al.
Quezada
Bitco General Insurance Corporation v. Union Ridge Ranch, LLC
Bondi
National Labor Relations Board v. Airgas USA, LLC
National Labor Relations Board v. MacY's Inc.
Lawson
LeGrand
Rodriguez
Singh
Mims
Kohli
Healy
Lazare
McDaniel
Aragon
Cruz
Su
Toothman
Pound
Sullivan
Gamboa
Rosales
Alfredo Zavaleta v. Layne Christensen Company
Rains
Anthony Lopez v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
Showing 1–50 of 1,784 rulings · Page 1 of 36
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.