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.
Nachshen
Gonzalez
Santiago
Kaplan
Woolf
Fischman
Woolf
Trustees of the Plumbers Local Union No. 1 Welfare Fund, Additional Security Benefit Fund, Vacation & Holiday Fund, Trade Education Fund, 401(K) Savings Plan v. Temperini Mechanical Inc.
Vermont Coalition for Community Schools, Inc. v. Harwood Unified Union School District
Ford
Restrepo
Flores
Summers Laboratories, Inc. v. Shionogi Inc.
Trustees of the Northeast Carpenters Health, Pension, Annuity, Apprenticeship, and Labor Management Cooperation Funds v. Excel Installations, LLC
Wang
Hardy
District Council No. 9 International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, A.F.L.-C.I.O. v. Phoenix Interior Contracting Co., Inc.
Zokirzoda
Trustees of the Sheet Metal Workers' Local Union No. 28 Funds and Plans v. Five Star Kitchen Installations, Inc.
Stephen Flanagan as a Trustee of the General Building Laborers' Local 66 Vacation Fund v. STC Sales&Service LLC
Vargas
Government Employees Insurance Company v. Wellmart RX, Inc.
Mejia Mendez v. Sweet Sam's Baking Company LLC
Ramnarain
Hadassah Academic College v. Hadassah, the Women's Zionist Organization of
Lemus
Chavez Melchor v. 228 Bleecker LLC
Mendez Mejia v. CJFour Inc.
Chang
Paguirigan
Paguirigan
National Credit Union Administration Board v. HSBC Bank US, National Association
Ntalianas
Adam
Barrera
Calandrino
Bolivar Guzman v. Toys Outlet Inc.
Franco Bautista v. 20th Street Pizza Corp.
Iowa Public Employees' Retirement System v. Bank of America Corporation
BMC
Niagara Blower Company v. Shopmen's Local Union 576
International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail & Transportation Workers, Local Union No. 71 v. Lovejoy Metals, Inc.
Mendez
Gordillo
Anselmo Lopez v. Uno Express Cleaners Inc.
Tavera
Pineda Gadea v. GKG Restaurant, Inc.
Mei
Ramos
Santos
Showing 2,701–2,750 of 4,502 rulings · Page 55 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.