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
Struve
Danny Ruark v. Union Pacific Railroad Compan
Danny Ruark v. Union Pacific Railroad Compan
Local 705 International Brotherhood of Teamsters Pension Fund v. Marina Cartage, Inc.
Dusek
NLRB v. Edward L. Calvert
Garcia
Mondelez Global LLC v. International Union of Operating Engineers Local 399
Fickey
Hogroe
Martinez
Singleton
Freeman
Coss
Local 727 Teamsters Local Union No. 727 Pension Fund v. Mid-City Parking
Vega
Adams
Vargas
EEOC v. CVS Pharmacy, Incorporated
Jefferson
Bergholz
Demkovich
Sanchez
Brotherhood of Locomotive Eng v. Union Pacific Railroad Compan
EEOC v. Costco Wholesale Corporation
EEOC v. Costco Wholesale Corp.
Kresch
Bilinsky
Labor One, Inc. v. Staff Management Solutions, LLC, et l
Solsol
Bell v. Loyola University Medical Center
Renzi
Egan
McCarthy
Moreno
Laborers' Pension Fund v. GA Paving, LLC
Gonzalez
Sterlinski
Hancox
Marijan
Phillips
Laborers' Welfare Fund for the Health and Welfare Department of the Construction and General Laborers' District Council of Chicago Vicinity v. Gilco Mechanical Contractors, Inc.
Johnson v. Chicago Board of Education
NLRB v. Jam Productions, Limited
Jam Productions, Limited v. NLRB
NLRB v. Jam Productions, Limited
Bernero
Aku
Geraci
Willie Jones v. Heartland Employment Services
Showing 551–600 of 1,243 rulings · Page 12 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.