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 5,351 published rulings we track here (1967–2026), 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 5,351 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 5,218 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 639 summary-judgment rulings here, 379 ended the case in the employer’s favor and 259 let the worker’s claims continue; the rest resolved in other ways.
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
- Union Pacific Railroad Company42
- United States Postal Service17
- Abbott Laboratories15
- United Parcel Service, Inc.14
- Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.14
- Wexford of Indiana, LLC14
States in This Circuit
Browse rulings from courts in each state the Ninth Circuit covers.
Recent Rulings in the Ninth Circuit
Huemer
Bhagwandin
Doe
Bautista
Singletary
Figueroa
Adam Askari D.D.S. Corp. v. U.S. Bancorp
Ballinger
Leavy
San Diego Branch of National Association For The Advancement of Colored People
Shannon
Cota
Hrones
Whitaker
Matadamos-Serrano
Doe
Smith v. Advanced Clinical Employment Staffing, LLC
Austin v. ABC Legal
Diaz
Philips North America LLC v. Advanced Imaging Services, Inc.
Novoselac
Trustees of the Glaziers, Architectural Metal And Glass Workers Local Union No. 740 Welfare Fund v. All City Glass of Oregon LLC
Kazda
Leemanuel Weilch v. Earth Vitality Medical Group, Inc.
Sam Benford v. Pier Avenue LLC
Kawaski Corley v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.
Dimry
Pectol
Allison
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. GIPHX10 LLC
John Edwards v. CoreCivic of Tennessee, LLC
Melgoza
Adamson
Droesch
Sam Benford v. Marine Plaza LLC
Denise Zapata v. Cambridge Investment Research, Inc.
Ancheta
Gilbert v. Jabar Wireless, Inc.
Ortiz
Langworthy
Sierra Nevada Transportation, Inc v. Nevada Transportation Authority, DIvision of the Nevada Department of Business and Industry
Wilson
John Ho v. Rykadan 005 LLC
Covington
Norman
Brewster v. All American Oilfield, LLC
Anderson
Monplaisir
Adams
Eric Cleveland v. Young Mi Cha
Showing 2,251–2,300 of 5,351 rulings · Page 46 of 108
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.