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
MCCLESKEY
Myers
Madewell
Wachala
Terry L. Lymon v. United Auto Workers Union 2209
Alice Jeffries v. Carlotta Adams
GEORGE
Laborforce, LLC v. Automobile Mechanics' Union Local No. 701, IAMAW, AFL-CIO
EEOC v. Walmart Stores East, L.P.
MULLIGAN
CAMPBELL
Breuder
Mlsna, Mark v. Union Pacific Railroad
Laufer
NLRB v. Constellation Brands U.S. Oper
Laborers' Pension and Laborers' Welfare Fund for the Health and Welfare Department of the Construction and General Laborers' District Council of Chicago Vicinity v. R & W Clark Construction, Inc.
Barnes
Reilly, Michael v. Century Fence Company
Bricklayers Union Indiana Pension Fund Trustees of the v. Best Brickwashing, LLC
Chicago Teachers Union, Local 1 American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago
Lozier
Breuder
Okada
Golbert
Golbert
Golbert
McKeown
Adams
Teamsters Local Union No. 72t v. De La Torre Funeral Home & Cremation Services, Inc.
Central Laborers' Pension, Welfare and Annuity Funds v. Wyandotte Corp.
Troesch
Domaracki
Altounian Construction, Inc. v. Administrative District Council 1 of Illinois of International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers
Taylor
Long
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP
Toth
Strong
Laborers' Pension Fund v. Midwest Milling and Paving Company
Breuder
Central Laborers' Pension Fund v. Signature Demolition Services Inc.
Employers & Cement Masons 90 Health & Welfare Fund v. Edwards-Kamadulski, LLC
Doe
McCutchan
Johnson v. Sun & Chang Corporation
Balderas
King
Prince
O'Shea
Simmons
Showing 751–800 of 2,293 rulings · Page 16 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.