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
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Karenkim, Inc.
MTA Bus Non-Union Employees Rank & File Committee ex rel. Simone v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority
Nasso
Weisbecker
In re GlaxoSmithKline ERISA Litig.
Bucalo
Danecker
National Labor Relations Board v. Starbucks Corp.
Malast
Adamczyk
National Labor Relations Board v. New Country Audi, Inc.
National Labor Relations Board v. County Waste of Ulster, LLC
New Orleans Employees Retirement System v. Celestica, Inc.
Malone
National Day Laborer Organizing Network v. United States Immigration & Customs Enforcement Agency
Hoops
In Re Citigroup ERISA Litigation
Harper
Adams
Adams
Telebrands Corp. v. Del Laboratories, Inc.
Castro
Zucco
Kamholtz
Salazar
Price
Jackson v. NYS Department of Labor
Plumbers, Pipefitters & Mes Local Union No. 392 Pension Fund v. Fairfax Financial Holdings Ltd.
Cunningham
Bucalo
O'Hara
Guinup
Samirah
Salazar-Martinez
Fagan
Seeman
Johnson v. C. WHITE & SON INC.
National Labor Relations Board v. Domsey Trading Corp.
Papelino
Stein
National Union Fire Insurance v. Las Vegas Professional Football Ltd. Partnership
Cirincione
Harper
Local Union 36, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. National Labor Relations Board
Weber
Labarbera
DeFabio
Plumbers & Pipefitters Local Union No. 630 Pension-Annuity Trust Fund v. Arbitron Inc.
Lindor
Perry
Showing 1,501–1,550 of 2,131 rulings · Page 31 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.