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 1,784 published rulings we track here (1976–2026), 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 1,784 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 1,750 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 174 summary-judgment rulings here, 108 ended the case in the employer’s favor and 66 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.
Top Claim Types
Top Employers
States in This Circuit
Browse rulings from courts in each state the Ninth Circuit covers.
Recent Rulings in the Ninth Circuit
Asing
Ayala
Goodwin
Savov
Koonce
Silman
Estrada
Nunn
Julie A. Su v. L & Y Food, Inc.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Tesla, Inc.
Feek
Nand
Kryzhanovskiy
Crippen
Lou
D.
Wynne
Eric Dean Aleshire v. Amazon.com Service LLC
Blanca Sanchez v. Geodis Logistics LLC
Xalamihua
Roberto Bruno v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.
Hunter
Harmony Blossom v. Waldorf Astoria Employer, LLC
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. DTG Las Vegas, LLC
Ganther
Alicia Esquivel v. Conrad Employer LLC
Alvarez
Board of Trustees of the Construction Industry and Laborers Health and Welfare Trust v. Emmanuel Environmental, Inc.
Auris Health, Inc. v. Noah Medical Corporation
In re Ardagh Glass
Jimenez
Hartwig
Dennis Cooper v. B S Kings Liquor Inc.
The Board of Trustees v. Empire Engineering & Construction, Inc.
Riyawna Washington v. Target Corporation
Estillore
Jayashankar
Wilhoite
Alicia Esquivel v. Conrad Employer LLC
Gregg
Kimberly Frazier v. Avocado Mattress LLC
Christopher J. McBee v. Raytheon Technologies Incorporated
Locals 302 and 612 of the International Union of Operating Engineers Construction Industry Health and Security Fund v. Ross Island Sand & Gravel Co.
Claudia Y. Carpena v. Anneta Group, LP
Anderson
Ramirez
John Ho v. Regal Group, LLC
Deon Gentry v. Quality Drive-Away, Inc.
Quesada
Deveon Peppers v. Pacific Office Automation, Inc.
Showing 351–400 of 1,784 rulings · Page 8 of 36
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.