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
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. St. Michael Hospital of Franciscan Sisters, Milwaukee, Inc.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Ilona of Hungary, Incorporated
Kriskovic
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Mitsubishi Motor Manufacturing of America, Inc.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Ilona of Hungary, Incorporated
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Cna Insurance Companies, Continental Casualty Company, and Continental Assurance Company
United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Laidlaw Waste, Inc.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. The Chicago Club
Jack A. RUSH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARTIN PETERSEN COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellee
United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Catholic Knights Insurance Society
Atchley
Leland R. Chalmers v. Quaker Oats Company, Quaker Officers' Severance Program, Douglas Ralston
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Applicant-Appellee v. Quad/graphics, Incorporated
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and Darlene Walters, Intervening v. Metropolitan Educational Enterprises, Incorporated, and Leonard Bieber
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Aic Security Investigations, Ltd.
Kathleen DAVIS and David Davis, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NEPCO EMPLOYEES MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellee
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Francis W. Parker School
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. G-K-G, Inc.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Quad/Graphics, Inc.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Harris Chernin, Inc.
United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. General Motors Corp.
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. ALC Security Investigations, Ltd.
Ernest L. Crady v. Liberty National Bank and Trust Company of Indiana, Steve Richards, Branch Administrator, and Jack Ragland, Chief Executive Officer
In the Matter of Sharon R. Cress, Debtor. Appeal of Employee Benefits Committee and Trustees of the Lilly Employee Savings Plan
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. City Colleges Of Chicago
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. City Colleges of Chicago
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Consolidated Services Systems
Sedita
United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. First National Bank
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. O & G Spring & Wire Forms Specialty Co.
Vucitech
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Chicago Miniature Lamp Works
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Randolph
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Chicago Miniature Lamp Works
National Labor Relations Board v. North American Van Lines, Inc.
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DOWD & DOWD, LTD., a Professional Corporation, Defendant-Appellee
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. University of Notre Dame Du Lac
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Suburban Transit System, Inc.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Chicago Miniature Lamp Works
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Bay Shipbuilding Corp.
Burlington Northern, Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Motorola, Inc.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Rinella & Rinella
Showing 1,201–1,243 of 1,243 rulings · Page 25 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.