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.
Micha
Department of Fair Employment & Housing v. Lucent Technologies, Inc.
Department of Fair Employment v. Lucent Technologies, Inc.
Adan De Leon-Calderon v. Eric Holder, Jr.
Fox v. Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers & Grain Millers International Union, Local No. 24
Eeoc v. Gnvl Corporation
Herlina Snider v. Greater Nevada LLC
Almada
Buenaventura
National Union Fire Insurance v. Ready Pac Foods, Inc.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Fry's Electronics, Inc.
Noble
AutoZone, Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Villagomes
SERCU
Adam
Corns
Boorman
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. GNLV Corp.
Abbey
McCue
Wood
Bernardo Morales Guadarrama v. Eric H. Holder Jr.
Dale Craig v. Nevada Attorney General
W.S.B. & Associates, Inc. v. Service Employees International Union, Local 1877
Charles Chatman v. Derrel Adams
Delian Brewer v. Darrell Adams
Levias
American Safety Indemnity Co. v. National Union Fire Insurance
AC Houston Lumber Co. Employee Health Plan v. Berg
Jorge Guadarrama v. F. Lo
Owcp
Adam Shelton, Jr. v. Mike Knowles
Adam Robinson v. John Marshall
Dianne Knox v. California State Employees Association
Knox v. CALIFORNIA STATE EMPLOYEES ASS'N
Ayalew Mergia v. Anne Marie Adams
Rodriguez
Marin-Posada
Progeny Ventures, Inc. v. Western Union Financial Services, Inc.
Parada-Chicas
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Banner Health
Eeoc v. Banner Health
Jake Henderson v. Derral Adams
Lee v. Northern Nevada Adult Mental Health Services
Almada
Almada
DR
Yamada
Tadaryl Williams v. H. Skolnick
Showing 3,251–3,300 of 4,198 rulings · Page 66 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.