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.
Hardiman
Larkin
Domann, Matthew v. Summit Credit Union
Landry
Citgo Petroleum Corporation v. United Steelworkers Union, Local No. 7-517
FLOWERS
Daley
Ohr
Curry
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. THE VILLAGE AT HAMILTON POINTE LLC
Muhammed
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. RockAuto, LLC
Sapia
Laborers' Pension Fund v. Murphy Paving and Sealcoating Inc.
Laborers' Pension Fund v. Murphy Paving and Sealcoating Inc.
AKERS
Gamble
Peak
Curry
Fox
Kibbons, Jr. v. Double Jack Properties, LLC
Central Laborers' Pension Fund v. E. A. Masonry, Inc.
Jaroch
Teamsters Union Pension Fund Trustees of the v. Actin Inc
Christensen
Employers & Laborers Locals 100 & 397 Pension, Health & Welfare and Annuity Funds v. A&A Hauling, Inc.
Greater St. Louis Construction Laborers Welfare Fund v. Zoie, LLC
Myvett
Holmes
Indiana Michigan Power Company v. Local Union 1392 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
Teamsters Union Pension Fund Trustees of the v. Actin Inc
Steed, Kelly v. General Motors Life and Disability Benefits Program for Hourly Employees
Daley
Steed, Kelly v. General Motors Life and Disability Benefits Program for Hourly Employees
Owens
Wise
Boardman
Harmon v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers District 10 AFL-CIO Union Lodge No 66
Estrada
Chicago Teachers Union v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago
Smith v. US Department of Ed
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE INDIANA LABORERS WELFARE FUND v. VAN DALSEN
TRUSTEES OF THE INDIANA ELECTRICAL WORKERS PENSION TRUST FUND IBEW v. DARNELL, INC.
Gunn
Dietrich
De Freitas v. United Airlines, Inc.
Marquelle Smith v. Herbert Adams
Marquelle Smith v. Herbert Adams
Marquelle Smith v. Herbert Adams
Showing 751–800 of 2,136 rulings · Page 16 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.