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 2,136 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.
Of the 2,136 published rulings we track in the Seventh Circuit.
A workplace lawsuit moves through stages, and a ruling can end it at any of them. Here is where the 2,124 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 556 summary-judgment rulings here, 357 ended the case in the employer’s favor and 198 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.
Browse rulings from courts in each state the Seventh Circuit covers.
Hughes v. United Air Lines, Inc.
Anthony Collins v. Heritage Wine Cellars Ltd.
Aearo Corp. v. American International Specialty Lines Insurance
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Supervalu, Inc.
Powers v. CENTENNIAL COMMUNICATIONS CORP.
Swartz v. Wabash National Corp.
United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. ABM Janitorial-Midwest, Inc.
Zimmer
Kingstad
Bloch v. Frischholz
Lynne Bloch v. Edward Frischholtz
North
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. C.G. Schmidt, Inc.
Jackson v. Verizon Wireless
Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp.
Kevin Kasten v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plast
Long
United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Olsten Staffing Services Corp.
Spivey
Laborer's Pension Fund v. Lay-Com, Inc.
Laborers' Pension v. Lay-Com Incorporated
United Electrical, Radio and M v. NLRB
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. International Profit Associates, Inc.
Gessling
George Nemsky v. International Union of Operati
Adams
Addis
Cockroft
In Re Fedex Ground Package System, Inc.
Local 65-B, Graphic Communications Conference of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. National Labor Relations Board
Mayden
Local 65-B, Graphic Communicat v. NLRB
Barker
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. International Profit Associates, Inc.
Castronovo
John Castronovo v. National Union Fire Insurance
Trustees of the Automobile Mechanics Local No. 701 Pension & Welfare Funds v. Union Bank of California, N.A.
EEOC v. AutoZone Inc.
Elborough
United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Olsten Staffing Services Corp.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Caterpillar, Inc.
Barker
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Synergy Health Inc.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Management Hospitality of Racine, Inc.
Kauspadas
Edmundas Kauspadas v. Eric Holder, Jr.
Teresa R. v. Madison Metropolitan School District
GCIU-Employer Retirement Fund v. Goldfarb Corp.
GCIU-Employer Retirement Fund v. Goldfarb Corporation
Adams
Showing 1,401–1,450 of 2,136 rulings · Page 29 of 43
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.