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 4,502 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.
Of the 4,502 published rulings we track in the Second Circuit.
A workplace lawsuit moves through stages, and a ruling can end it at any of them. Here is where the 4,367 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 807 summary-judgment rulings here, 484 ended the case in the employer’s favor and 322 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.
Browse rulings from courts in each state the Second Circuit covers.
Flores Moreno v. JJ Food Market Corp.
Farmer
Cardwell
Arellano
McFarlane
Dominguez Tapia v. Graham Restaurant LLC
Stidhum
Mercado
Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Jacobson, D.C.
Trustees of the Northeast Carpenters Health, Pension, Annuity, Apprenticeship, and Labor Management Cooperation Funds v. Upstate Interiors, LLC
Knox v. John Varvatos Enterprises, Inc.
Trustees of the New York City District Council of Carpenters Pension Fund, Welfare Fund, Annuity Fund, Apprenticeship, Journeyman Retraining, Educational and Industry Fund v. Inniss Construction, Inc.
District Council No. 9 International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, A.F.L.- C.I.O. v. Speedo Corp.
Vera
Villalta
Qazi
Mokrov
Licona Perez v. Hummus On 6th LLC
Paguada
Oparaji
Rigano
Manzano Tiburcio v. Pine Bar & Grill LLC
Wang
Welch
Wong
Tepox Gutierrez v. 300 West 46th St. Corp.
Drywall Tapers and Pointers of Greater New York Local Union 1974, Affiliated with International Union of Allied Painters and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO v. Precision Interiors Corp.
Duncan Robles v. Luis Furniture 1 Inc.
Hines
Cajero Torres v. Sushi Sushi Holdings 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. Precision Interiors Corp.
Brandenburg
Dodd
Ulrich
Paguirigan
Hong
Quezada
Villanueva
Trustees of the Northeast Carpenters Health, Pension, Annuity, Apprenticeship, and Labor Management Cooperation Funds v. ADF Designs Inc.
Quezada
Flores Moreno v. JJ Food Market Corp.
Quinones, Jr. v. UMVLT LLC
Mendez
Flores
Juca
Farid
Zavala Artiega v. Griffin Organics, Inc.
De Jesus Prudente v. Brother's Bakery Cafe Corp.
Rahman
District Council No. 9 International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, A.F.L.- C.I.O. v. Sahara Construction Corp.
Showing 2,001–2,050 of 4,502 rulings · Page 41 of 91
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.