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.
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 21 v. National Labor Relations Board
Cyntegra, Inc. v. IDEXX Laboratories, Inc.
Laborers International Union of North America, Local 872 v. National Labor Relations Board
Laborers International Union of North America, Local 872 v. National Labor Relations Board
Cyntegra, Inc. v. IDEXX Laboratories, Inc.
International Brothe v. NLRB
Chudacoff
LaPeter
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Boeing Co.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Boeing Co.
NORELLI
Houston v. Governing Board of the Encinitas Union School District
Houston v. Governing Board of the Encinitas Union School District
Adams
United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial & Service Workers International Union v. National Labor Relations Board
United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial & Service Workers International Union v. National Labor Relations Board
Ollier
Irvin
Irvin
Estrada
Alexander Manufacturing, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan & Trust v. Illinois Union Insurance
Dillingham Ship Repair v. United States Department of Labor
Dillingham Ship Repair v. United States Department of Labor
Iuic
Hamma
Ramirez
Ramirez
Freund
Freund
Virginia Mason Medical Center v. National Labor Relations Board
Virginia Mason v. NLRB
Baker
Baker
Lapeter
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Federal Express Corp.
Eeoc v. Fedex Corp
Davis
Virginia Mason v. NLRB
Laisure-Radke
Laisure-Radke
Ahlmeyer
Ahlmeyer
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Republic Services, Inc.
Halladay Ex Rel. AH v. WENATCHEE SCHOOL DIST.
Mundi
Mundi
Kroll
Kupau
D. K. Ex Rel. Kumetz-Coleman v. Huntington Beach Union High School District
Adachi
Showing 3,451–3,500 of 4,198 rulings · Page 70 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.