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
Williams v. The NFL Player Supplemental Disability Plan
Mickey Gaines v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Vahora
Leemanuel Weilch v. OM Foods Pioneer Inc
Zanoni
Becerra
Eric Bahra v. County of San Bernardino
Clifton
Diaz
Clark v. Clark County Human Resorce Devision
Julian
Raul Uriarte-Limon v. Hoon-Yin Ho
Columbia Export Terminal, LLC v. The International Longshore and Warehouse Union
Brooke
Brooke
Drevaleva
Nash
Guadalupe Bores v. Lime Crime, Inc.
Martin
Dunlap
Ruben Paul Gonzales v. Moros Cuban Restaurant
Redwind
Nevada Restaurant Servs., Inc. v. Clark County
Raquedan
Robson
Marvila Estrada Adame v. William Barr
Michael White v. Sr. Leaders Severance Pay Plan
Nelson Calzada v. William Barr
Acosta
Adams
Hyams
Guido
Guadalupe Salazar v. McDonald's Corp.
Adams
Kazda
(CONSENT) Hopson v. Ross Stores, Inc.
Olga Gorbacheva v. Abbott Laboratories Edp
Mohammed
Peter Strojnik v. Four Sisters Inns, Inc
Guadalupe Bores v. Lime Crime, Inc.
Clark v. CoreCivic, Inc.
Napleton Orlando Imports, LLC v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Abraham
Bradford v. Chevron USA Inc.
Brian Whitaker v. PQ Newport Beach Bakery, Inc.
Abacuc Heras v. B-K Plaza, LLC et la
Shing
Brian Whitaker v. La Goccia, Inc.
Chief Administrative Officer of the Occupational Safety and health Administration, Division of Industrial Relations of the Department of Business and Industry, State of Nevada v. Savage Services Corp
Frieri
Showing 3,601–3,650 of 5,351 rulings · Page 73 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.