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 5,280 published rulings we track here (1961–2026), 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 5,280 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 5,057 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 870 summary-judgment rulings here, 553 ended the case in the employer’s favor and 317 let the worker’s claims continue.
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 Labor39
- New York City Department of Education21
- United States Postal Service19
- The City of New York17
- New York City Transit Authority14
- Government Employees Insurance Company13
States in This Circuit
Browse rulings from courts in each state the Second Circuit covers.
Recent Rulings in the Second Circuit
Paguada
Chidume
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Green Lantern Inn, Inc.
Williams v. Aaron Johnson
Monegro
Motta
Qiu
Trustees of the Northeast Carpenters Health, Pension, Annuity, Apprenticeship and Labor Management Cooperation Funds v. Exterior Erecting Services, Inc.
Gattoni
Coleman
Garcia Espindola v. Pizza Stop Corp.
Goett
Wen
Frilando
Trustees of the Northeast Carpenters Health, Pension, Annuity, Apprenticeship, and Labor Management Cooperation Funds v. Duncan Partners, LLC
Deleston
Ramos
Alexander
Stewart
Guglielmo
Weisshaus
Leroy
Ovalles Acosta v. Prudent Management, LLC
Grullon
Paguada
McCoy
Rahman
Paguada
Smith v. BRP Development Corporation
Cuthbert
Wright
Thompson
Paguada
Angeles
Ramirez Argueta v. Don Filippo Restaurant Corp.
Totora
Dr. Gerald R. Finkel, as Chairman of the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry v. Lintech Electrical, Inc.
Gonzalez
Dacas
Fenton
Ferrara
Paguada
Mason v. Amtrust Financial Services, 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. ATO Contracting Corp.
Saavedra
Garcia
Gomez
Gonzalez Villegas v. Caribbean Produce Inc.
Abada
Pilchman
Showing 2,851–2,900 of 5,280 rulings · Page 58 of 106
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.