Employment Rulings in the Seventh Circuit
The Seventh Circuit covers the federal courts in Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. The rulings below come from the circuit's court of appeals and the federal trial courts within it.
Of the 1,243 published rulings we track here (1975–2026), 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 1,243 published rulings we track in the Seventh 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 1,238 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 307 summary-judgment rulings here, 203 ended the case in the employer’s favor and 104 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
- Union Pacific Railroad Company45
- Abbott Laboratories28
- Board of Education of the City of Chicago12
- Union Pacific Railroad11
- United Airlines, Inc.10
- Chicago Transit Authority9
States in This Circuit
Browse rulings from courts in each state the Seventh Circuit covers.
Recent Rulings in the Seventh Circuit
Jurijus Kadamovas v. John Caraway
Jurijus Kadamovas v. John Caraway
Maglajlic
Brown
Local 702, International Brot v. NLRB
Local 702, International Brot v. NLRB
Laborers' Pension Fund v. ABN Building Maintenance
Taylor-Reeves
Adams
Monroe
Matthew Carello v. Aurora Policeman Credit Union
Adams
Matthew Carello v. Aurora Policeman Credit Union
Craig
Beverly
Chicago Area I.B. of T. Health and Welfare Trust Fund v. Olympic Wholesale Produce, Inc.
Eduarte
Melgoza
Dietrich
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Fermi Research Alliance, LLC
Pearson
Dominick's Finer Foods, LLC v. UFCW Unions & Employers Midwest Pension Fund
Pascal
Jibson
LABR
Jahnke
Schewitz
Mojapelo
Nelson v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.
Mlsna
LABR
Lu Aku v. Chicago Teachers Union
Daniel
Davood
Brock Indus. Servs., LLC v. Laborers' Int'l Union of N. Am. Constr.
Brock Industrial Services, LLC v. Laborers' International Union
Choi
Haack
Henyard
Adama Njie v. Stephanie Dorethy
Adama Njie v. Stephanie Dorethy
Adama Njie v. Stephanie Dorethy
Harbeck
Barnes
Walsh
Rauner
Local 705 International Brotherhood of Teamsters Pension Fund v. Central Contractors Service, Inc.
Trustees of the Chicago Regional Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. American Mechanical, Inc.
Pouliot
International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators Local 17 Pension Fund v. Northwest Mechanical Insulation Co.
Showing 501–550 of 1,243 rulings · Page 11 of 25
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.