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 2,293 published rulings we track here (1973–2026), 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 2,293 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 2,252 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 465 summary-judgment rulings here, 273 ended the case in the employer’s favor and 191 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.
Top Claim Types
Top Employers
States in This Circuit
Browse rulings from courts in each state the Seventh Circuit covers.
Recent Rulings in the Seventh Circuit
Coyer
Bentson
Bryant
Adams
Chilcutt
In re Outpatient Medical Center Employee Antitrust Litigation
Hill
Scott
Jacinta Downing v. Abbott Laboratories
Laborers' Pension Fund v. Total Home Restoration 1 a/k/a THR 1, Inc.
Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local 268 v. Enskat Mechanical, LLC
Central Laborers' Pension Welfare and Annuity Funds v. Edwards Kamadulski, LLC
Hensiek
Trevino
Gull
Trustees of the Teamsters Union No. 142 Pension Fund v. Correct Construction, Inc.
Edwards
Kraai
Anderson
Butler, Jerry v. Eschalante, Jim
Stevenson
Adams
Adamczyk
White, Dustin v. Boardman, Adam
Rizwan
Terry Paulsen v. Abbott Laboratories
Pagan Hernandez v. Milwaukee Composites Inc
Tousignant
EEOC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Durham v. Lake County Indiana
Walsh
Trustees of the Chicago Regional Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Drive Construction, Inc.
Hickman
Satterfield
Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. DT Leasing, LLC
Martin J. Zielinski v. Wisconsin Labor and Industry
Iannotti
Woznicki
Porter
EEOC v. American Flange and Grief, Inc.
Davis
Seneca, Dean v. Great Lakes Inter-Tribal Council, Inc.
Pryor
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 150, AFL-CIO v. Grosshening, Inc
Gilbert v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
Stephenson
Retirement Plan For Employees Represented By Sheet Metal Workers Local Union 18 v. MM Mechanical LLC
Calo
Malas
Petroff Companies, Inc. v. Local Union 520, International Union of Operating Engineers
Showing 551–600 of 2,293 rulings · Page 12 of 46
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.