Employment Rulings in the Second Circuit
The Second Circuit covers the federal courts in New York, Connecticut, and Vermont. The rulings below come from the circuit's court of appeals and the federal trial courts within it.
Of the 2,131 published rulings we track here (1964–2026), 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 2,131 published rulings we track in the Second 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 2,067 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 419 summary-judgment rulings here, 265 ended the case in the employer’s favor and 153 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
- New York State Department of Labor26
- United States Postal Service10
- New York City Transit Authority10
- International Business Machines Corporation8
- General Electric Company7
- New York University7
States in This Circuit
Browse rulings from courts in each state the Second Circuit covers.
Recent Rulings in the Second Circuit
Thompson
Barro
Meehan
Chung
Quezada
Krause
Vandermark
Hernandez
Maldonado
Mann
Trustees Of The New York City District Council Of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Annuity Fund, and Apprenticeship, Journeyman Retraining, Educational and Industry Fund v. North Star Concrete Construction, Corp.
Rodriguez
Local 355 United Service Workers Union, International Union of Journeymen and Allied Trades v. Aircon Enterprises, Inc.
Fischler
Elshamy
Tormall
Johnson v. L'Oreal USA
Quezada
Caltenco
Kennedy v. Bethpage Union Free School District
Orrego
Krist
Calcano
Valentin
Napolitano
Garthwait
Ebalu
Ellington
Pena
Ramirez
Torres
Argyropoulous
Schwartz
Chavez
DST Systems, Inc. v. Ruane, Cunniff & Goldfarb Inc.
The Annuity, Pension, Welfare, Training and Labor Management Cooperation Trust Funds of the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 14-14B, AFL-CIO v. Midwest Rem Enterprises, Inc.
Drywall Tapers and Pointers of Greater New York Local Union 1974, Affiliated with International Union of Allied Painters and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO v. Efrain Jimenez, Jr. General Contractor Inc.
Loth
Rinaldi
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 2230 v. Brookhaven Science Associates, LLC
Ergin
Ocampo
NLRB v. Newark Electric
Andrew
Goldman
Dikambi
Ramirez
De Los Santos v. Hat Trick Pizza, Inc.
Hernandez
Baez
Showing 801–850 of 2,131 rulings · Page 17 of 43
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.