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.
Frumusa
Carlson
Wali v. One Source Co.
Quitoriano v. RAFF & BECKER, LLP.
Fowler v. SCORES HOLDING COMPANY, INC.
Jock v. STERLING JEWELERS, INC.
Kelly
New York Civil Liberties Union v. New York City Transit Authority
Parks v. Office of Temporary & Disability Assistance
Naylor
Kingsbridge Heights Care Center, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board
National Labor Relations Board v. Saint Mary Home
Meacham
Shaywitz v. American Board of Psychiatry & Neurology
Cover
Austin v. United States Department of Labor
In re Starbucks Employee Gratuity Litigation
Hendricks v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.
Sims
DELLAVOLPE
Bielski v. Green
VandenBroek v. PSEG Power Ct LLC
VandenBroek v. PSEG Power Ct LLC
United Transportation Union v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.
In Re Morgan Stanley Erisa Litigation
United Transportation Union and Carmen J. Famulare v. National Railroad
Larkin v. Martin
Kanhoye
Hall v. Parker Hannifan Corp.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
UPS
Agostinello
Agostinello
Pollack
Sclafani
Lopez
Perkins v. Southern New England Telephone Co.
Stone v. United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Stone v. United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations v. Royal Food Distributors Ltd. Liability Co.
In Re: Citigroup Pension Plan ERISA
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Everdry Marketing & Management, Inc.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Everdry Marketing & Management, Inc.
Abdul-Salaam
Brown
Local 348-S, Ufcw, Afl-Cio v. Meridian Management
Local 348 v. Meridian Management
DeFABIO
Velu v. Velocity Express, Inc.
Dorcely
Showing 3,401–3,450 of 4,502 rulings · Page 69 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.