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
Cuizon
Chen
Rochester Laborers' Welfare-S.U.B. Fund by Robert Brown as Chairman, and Daniel Hogan as Secretary v. Akwesasne Construction Inc.
Acharya
Kelly
Aurora Contractors, Inc. v. Construction and General Building Laborers Local 79
Paguada
Bernstein
Soto
Villar
Pena Abreu v. White Star NYC Inc.
Williams v. Kingdom Animalia, LLC
Jairam
Tormall
Dorsainvil
Thompson
Williams v. Fisher & Paykel Appliances USA Holdings Inc.
Manzanares
Demersky
Mason v. Amtrust Financial Services, Inc.
Sanossian
Tahirou
Alt
Olaechea
Buffalo Laborers Welfare Fund v. Leone Construction, Inc.
Salazar
Gonzalez
Drehmer
Brooks
Spadaro
Candido Basurto v. Original Ray's Inc.
Lesser
Trustees of the District Council No. 9 Painting Industry Insurance Fund v. Sahara Construction Corp.
International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail & Transportation Workers, Local Union No. 71 v. Lovejoy Metals, Inc.
Miranda
Williams v. Lorac Cosmetics, LLC
Solomon
Cardoso
Heusinger
Torre
Melchor
Saldana
Arango
Trustees of the Northeast Carpenters Health, Pension, Annuity, Apprenticeship, and Labor Management Cooperation Funds v. 34 Group, Inc.
Lamberty
Roy
Morales Miranda v. Astoria Provisions, LLC
O'Kane
Ray
First Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company v. Giorgio Armani Corporation
Showing 1,051–1,100 of 2,131 rulings · Page 22 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.