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
Jones
Board of Trustees of the Laborers Health and Welfare Trust Fund for Northern California v. RMT Landscape Contractors, Inc.
Sergio Ramirez v. Transunion LLC
Michael Watkins v. Woodridge Productions, Inc.
(PS) Chavez v. Del Sol Farm Labor Services Inc.
Redwind
Bell v. Employment Security Division, State of Nevada
Linsangan
Peter Schuman v. Microchip Technology Incorporated
Orr
Stahl
Ludlow
National Union Fire Ins. v. Zillow, Inc.
Pierson
Gonzales v. Nye County, Nevada
Anthony Bouyer v. Jonker Investments, LP
Anthony Bouyer v. 16900 Roscoe, LLC
Guadalupe Beltran v. Procare Pharmacy LLC
Emrit
Spikes
Hill
Barajas-Quijada
Stephanie Patton v. Forest Laboratories, Inc.
Guanzon
Brown
In Sun Kil v. Unique Nails and Spa, Inc.
Atayde
Iuoe 501 v. NLRB
Iuoe Local 501 v. NLRB
Manuel Andrade v. Beacon Sales Acquisition, Inc.
Simmons
Alabsi
Abueg
Anne Prafada v. Mesa Unified School District
Locals 302 and 612 of the International Union of Operating Engineers Construction Industry Health and Security Fund v. AEI Williams Group Co
Dutchover
Roy Yiun v. Garden Fresh Restaurants LLC
Brian Whitaker v. Starbucks Corporation
Meira Davis v. MacuHealth Distribution, Inc.
Flores
Clendenen
Orlando Garcia v. Premiercap Land Company of California, LLC
Howard Abselet v. Hudson Labor Solutions, Inc.
Krause
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Herb Hallman Chevrolet d/b/a Champion Chevrolet
Dunn-Ruiz
Yong Koo v. Golden Mile, Inc.
In Sun Kil v. P v. Mart, Inc.
Albert
Clifton
Showing 3,501–3,550 of 5,351 rulings · Page 71 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.