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
International Union of Operati v. Wisconsin Legislature
International Union of Operati v. Wisconsin Legislature
BARRETT
Leskovisek
Joseph Ocol v. Chicago Teachers Union
Mausser
Joseph Ocol v. Chicago Teachers Union
O'Leary
MARTON
Clarson
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Dean
Carlson
Puffer
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.
Dougherty
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.
DOE
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 150, AFL-CIO v. Adamo Demolition Company
Siebert
Martin
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
Tucker
Tischer, Jessica v. Union Pacific Railroad Company
Adamczyk
Strong-Davis
Laborforce, LLC v. Automobile Mechanics' Union Local No. 701, IAMAW, AFL-CIO
Balderas
DONNELLY
GEORGE
Lymon
Donald
Grillo
Laborers' Pension Fund v. Dinatale Construction Inc.
Webb
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.
Showing 801–850 of 2,293 rulings · Page 17 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.