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.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Dean
Carlson
Puffer
Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Zenith Logistics, Inc.
Employers & Laborers Locals 100 & 397 Pension, Health, Welfare and Annuity Funds v. Ehret, Inc.
Wisconsin Laborers Pension Fund v. R.L. Davis Contracting Services, L.L.C.
Burke
Central Laborers' Pension Welfare and Annuity Funds v. M.D. Magary Construction Company
Adam Delgado v. U.S. Department of Justice
Adam Delgado v. U.S. Department of Justice
Adam Delgado v. U.S. Department of Justice
International Union of Operating Engineers v. Ryan & Associates, Inc.
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 150, AFL-CIO v. Adamo Demolition Company
Siebert
Martin
Roldan
Teamsters Local Union No. 705 v. Central Contractors Service, Inc.
Donegal Services, LLC v. International Union of Operating Engineers Local 150, AFL-CIO
Jimenez
Blevins
Gill
Blevins
Tischer, Jessica v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
Adamczyk
Strong-Davis
Abudayyeh
Laborforce, LLC v. Automobile Mechanics' Union Local No. 701, IAMAW, AFL-CIO
Winkelman
Balderas
DONNELLY
GEORGE
Lymon
Saud
Poshard
Grillo
Gunn
Laborers' Pension Fund v. Dinatale Construction Inc.
Clarson
Webb
Inojosa
Mark Mlsna v. Union Pacific Railroad Compan
Mark Mlsna v. Union Pacific Railroad Compan
Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Dworkin, Inc.
Laborers' Pension Fund v. Ruane Construction, Inc.
Laborers' Pension Fund v. Ruane Construction, Inc.
National Labor Relations Board v. Sunbelt Rentals Inc
McVey
Rossman
Bricklayers Union Local No. 6 of Indiana Pension Fund v. RV Builders
Showing 651–700 of 2,136 rulings · Page 14 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.