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 1,243 published rulings we track here (1975–2026), 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 1,243 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 1,238 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 307 summary-judgment rulings here, 203 ended the case in the employer’s favor and 104 let the worker’s claims continue.
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
- Union Pacific Railroad Company45
- Abbott Laboratories28
- Board of Education of the City of Chicago12
- Union Pacific Railroad11
- United Airlines, Inc.10
- Chicago Transit Authority9
States in This Circuit
Browse rulings from courts in each state the Seventh Circuit covers.
Recent Rulings in the Seventh Circuit
Mortenson, Lee N. v. Nat'l Union Fire Pit
Sanders
Teamsters & Employers Welfare Trust v. Gorman Bros. Ready Mix
Ritacca
Williams v. Eastside Lumberyard and Supply Co.
Northern Indiana Public Service Company v. United Steelworkers of America, Afl-Cio-Clc, and United Steelworkers of America, Local Union 12775
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Rockwell International Corp.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Rockwell International Corp.
Stone v. American Federation of Government Employees
United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 700 v. Kroger Co.
6 West Limited Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board
Duffy Tool & Stamping, L.L.C. v. National Labor Relations Board
Kim Adams v. Ameritech Services, Inc. And Indiana Bell Telephone Co., Inc., and Deborah Allard v. Indiana Bell Telephone Co., Inc.
Adams, Kim v. IN Bell Tele Co.
National Labor Relations Board v. Aluminum Casting & Engineering Co., Inc.
NLRB v. Aluminum Casting
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Humiston-Keeling, Inc.
EEOC v. Humiston-Keeling Inc
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Indiana Bell Telephone Co., Inc., D/B/A Ameritech Indiana, and Ameritech Corp.
William Kinslow v. American Postal Workers Union, Chicago Local
Vulcan Basement Waterproofing of Illinois, Inc., Petitioner/cross-Respondent v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent/cross-Petitioner
Vulcan Basement v. NLRB
Union Oil Company v. Leavell, Dan
Lemon v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local No. 139
NLRB v. Americold Logistics
Linda Place, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Abbott Laboratories, Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee
United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.
Connecticut General Life Insurance v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada
Crabill
Jet Star, Inc., Petitioner/cross-Respondent v. National Labor Relations Board, Respondent/cross-Petitioner
Zeman
Alexis M. Hermon Secretary of Labor v. Local 1011, United Steelworkers of America, Afl-Cio, Clc
Moriarty Ex Rel. Union No. 727 v. Hills Funeral
NLRB v. Somerville Construct
Empress Casino Joliet Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board
Independent Lift Truck Builders Union, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Nacco Materials Handling Group, Inc., Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee
Medcom Holding Company, Cross-Appellee v. Baxter Travenol Laboratories, Inc., and Medtrain, Inc.
Fuller
United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Rockwell International Corp.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. TruGreen Ltd. Partnership
James Papa v. Katy Industries, Inc. And Walsh Press Company, Inc., Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Gjhsrt, Inc.
EEOC v. Rockwell International Corp.
Fall
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. TruGreen Limited Partnership
Albert C. McNAB, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. North Knox School Corporation and Board of School Trustees for the North Knox School Corporation
22 Employee Benefits Cas. 1941, Pens. Plan Guide (Cch) P 23,950f Robert Blue v. Ual Corporation
Peter D. COLLINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RALSTON PURINA COMPANY and Golden Cat Corporation, Defendants-Appellees
Haga
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. General Electric Co.
Showing 1,151–1,200 of 1,243 rulings · Page 24 of 25
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.