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 2,136 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.
Of the 2,136 published rulings we track in the Seventh Circuit.
A workplace lawsuit moves through stages, and a ruling can end it at any of them. Here is where the 2,124 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 556 summary-judgment rulings here, 357 ended the case in the employer’s favor and 198 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 Seventh Circuit covers.
Mlsna, Mark v. Union Pacific Railroad
Employers and Operating Engineers Local 520 Pension Fund v. A & A Companies, Inc.
Employers and Illinois Operative Plasterers and Cement Masons Local 18 Annuity Fund v. H. F. Fritsch & Sons, Inc.
COLLINS
NLRB v. Mondelez Global LLC
Malloy
Griffin
Cage
Padgett
International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers, Transportation Division v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
Johnson v. Cellco Partnership
Doe
Mlsna, Mark v. Union Pacific Railroad
StarNet Insurance Company v. Adam Ruprecht
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Wal-Mart Stores East LP
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Wal-Mart Stores East LP
Sheldon
Mlsna, Mark v. Union Pacific Railroad
Mlsna, Mark v. Union Pacific Railroad
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. HZ Ops Holding, Inc
Watts
Hoogenboom
Park
Park
BILLINGS
Plumbers and Fitters Local Union 101 v. Spengler Plumbing Company, Inc.
Adamczyk
Jackson v. American Water Co.
Moore
Karlo
Schwartz
Simon, Sarah v. Cooperative Educational Service Agency 5
TRUSTEES OF THE SHEET METAL WORKERS LOCAL UNION NO. 20 WELFARE AND BENEFIT FUND v. ROGERS MECHANICAL, INC.
Neeck, Connor v. Badger Brothers Moving LLC
Thompson
Stone v. Signode Industrial Group LLC
Ford
Wilson
Kelly
Mesa Laboratories, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Company
Brooks
Myers
Madewell
Wachala
Terry L. Lymon v. United Auto Workers Union 2209
Alice Jeffries v. Carlotta Adams
Ford
GEORGE
Laborforce, LLC v. Automobile Mechanics' Union Local No. 701, IAMAW, AFL-CIO
EEOC v. Walmart Stores East, L.P.
Showing 551–600 of 2,136 rulings · Page 12 of 43
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.