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
Stieglitz
Serir
MULLINS
Osborne
Teamsters Local Union No. 727 Pension Fund v. Capital Parking, L.L.C
Hollins
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. RockAuto, LLC
DAVIS
Aleman
Haugen
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
Sladek
Malloy
Griffin
International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers, Transportation Division v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
Johnson v. Cellco Partnership
Mlsna, Mark v. Union Pacific Railroad
Danna-Mulick
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
Debruler
Sheldon
Mlsna, Mark v. Union Pacific Railroad
Mlsna, Mark v. Union Pacific Railroad
Haran
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. HZ Ops Holding, Inc
Hoogenboom
Park
Park
BILLINGS
Noe
Stauffer
Plumbers and Fitters Local Union 101 v. Spengler Plumbing Company, Inc.
Adamczyk
Moore
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.
Doxtator
Doxtator
Neeck, Connor v. Badger Brothers Moving LLC
Thompson
BROWN
Wilson
Mesa Laboratories, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Company
Showing 701–750 of 2,293 rulings · Page 15 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.