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 4,198 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 4,198 published rulings we track in the Ninth Circuit.
A workplace lawsuit moves through stages, and a ruling can end it at any of them. Here is where the 4,112 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 492 summary-judgment rulings here, 257 ended the case in the employer’s favor and 235 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 Ninth Circuit covers.
Pipich
Tris Carpenter v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, District Council 36
Nosaka
Jungblut
Kevin Damoa v. Canoo Technologies Inc.
Cram
Love
Erik Rudolph v. Herc Rentals, Inc.
Lueck
Allison
Perez
Nelson v. California Employment Development Department
Raya
Arnold Vasquez v. McLane Foodservice, Inc.
Karl
De Bernardi v. City and County of San Francisco
Winn
Bowman
Trustees of the N. NV Laborers Health & Welfare Trust Fund v. Kenneth M. Mercurio
Adams
Abdul-Haqq
Smith v. Fidelity Workplace Services LLC
Stilwell, Jr. v. Caesars Entertainment
National Labor Relations Board v. Red Rock Resorts Inc.
Jose Valladares v. Smithfield Packaged Meats Corporation
Arroyo
Nghiem
Petras
Shimose
Weeks
Esther Mendez v. Levy Premium Foodservice LP
Ronald Lockhart v. Logistics LLC
Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. Valley Wide Plastering Construction Incorporated
David Lopez v. M and A Gabaee
Dean Waltz v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.
Adamwicz
Salesdrivers, Helpers and Dairy Employees, Local Union No. 683, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Pasha Automotive Services
The Women's Student Union v. U.S. Department of Education
Shak
(PS) Pendarvis v. Elk Grove Self Help Housing Employees
Zamudio
Foster
Williams v. Redwood Toxicology Laboratory
Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor v. Mesa Air Group Incorporated
Austin v. Lyft, Inc.
CoreCivic of Tennessee v. International Union, Security, Police and Fire Professionals of America
Ada Maria Benson v. Angel View Clearance Center
Ada Maria Benson v. Novitas Solution Inc.
Arac Burt v. Cannon Management LLC
Adams
Showing 1,451–1,500 of 4,198 rulings · Page 30 of 84
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.