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
National Labor Relations Board v. Sunbelt Rentals Inc
Smith v. Red Rock Productions, LLC
McVey
Rossman
Bricklayers Union Local No. 6 of Indiana Pension Fund v. RV Builders
PATEL
Inman
Hayes
White
American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees Council 32 and its Affiliated Local 467 AFL-CIO v. Sunny Ridge Nursing and Rehabilitation Center LLC
Sutherlin
Robinson
Spence
Breuder
National Labor Relations Board v. Sunbelt Rentals Inc
Bertschy
Phillips
Kuk
Tate
Denean Adams v. Board of Education Harvey Scho
Denean Adams v. Board of Education Harvey Scho
Richards
Lucas
East Central Illinois Pipe Trades Health & Welfare Fund v. Prather Plumbing & Heating, Inc.
Adam Delgado v. U.S. Department of Justice
Poshard
Adam Delgado v. U.S. Department of Justice
Grove
VanOoteghem
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. PML Services, LLC
Taylor
File
Mendez
Johnson v. Chicago Transit Authority
Ruffin
Bradley LeDure v. Union Pacific Railroad Compan
FITZGERALD
Bradley LeDure v. Union Pacific Railroad Compan
Watkins
Bricklayers Local 8 of Illinois and Employers Pension Plan v. Little Grassy Construction, Inc.
Roehrich y Gorostieta v. Walmart, Inc.
Chicago Regional Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. United Carpet, Inc.
DiSalvo, Zachary v. CRM US, Inc.
WESTRAY
Hillard
BLET GCA UP Central Region v. Union Pacific Railroad Corp.
Union Pacific Railroad Company v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen/Union Pacific Central Region General Committee of Adjustment
Stapleton
Cheli
Hannah
Showing 851–900 of 2,293 rulings · Page 18 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.