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
Passante
Haley
Tejada
Zhang
O'Rourke
Wen
Wang
Perovic
The Annuity, Welfare and Apprenticeship Skill Improvement & Safety Funds of the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 15, 15A, 15C & 15D, AFL-CIO v. Intercounty Paving Associates of New York, LLC
Dadgostari
Peral
Bey
Grastorf
West
Cuizon
Singh
Chen
Rochester Laborers' Welfare-S.U.B. Fund by Robert Brown as Chairman, and Daniel Hogan as Secretary v. Akwesasne Construction Inc.
Acharya
Antolini
Kelly
Aurora Contractors, Inc. v. Construction and General Building Laborers Local 79
Diaz
Scarborough
Paguada
Bernstein
Drywall Tapers and Pointers of Greater New York Local Union 1974, Affiliated with International Union of Allied Painters and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO v. Magnitude Construction Corp.
Soto
Soto
Ward
Villar
Ebed
Pena Abreu v. White Star NYC Inc.
Tapia
Williams v. Kingdom Animalia, LLC
Jairam
Dorsainvil
Beaton
Thompson
Alejandro Narcizo v. NY Strawberry Deli Corp.
Williams v. Fisher & Paykel Appliances USA Holdings Inc.
Division 1181 Amalgamated Transit Union - New York Employees Pension Fund v. New York City Department of Education
Dr. Gerald R. Finkel, as Chairman of the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry v. Allstate Electric Corp.
Manzanares
Demersky
Gilani
Paguada
Cuomo
Mason v. Amtrust Financial Services, Inc.
Flores Galloso v. 3821 Food Corp.
Showing 2,951–3,000 of 5,280 rulings · Page 60 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.