Employment Rulings in the Sixth Circuit
The Sixth Circuit covers the federal courts in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee. The rulings below come from the circuit's court of appeals and the federal trial courts within it.
Of the 1,113 published rulings we track here (1971–2026), 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 1,113 published rulings we track in the Sixth 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 1,109 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 290 summary-judgment rulings here, 209 ended the case in the employer’s favor and 81 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
- General Motors Corporation7
- United States Postal Service7
- U.S. Bank National Association4
- General Motors, LLC4
- Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County4
- United Parcel Service, Inc.4
States in This Circuit
Browse rulings from courts in each state the Sixth Circuit covers.
Recent Rulings in the Sixth Circuit
NLRB v. VNS Fed. Servs., LLC
Diamond Williams v. Mastronardi Produce-USA, Inc.
Mark Pannek v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n
Mark Charlton-Perkins v. Univ. of Cincinnati
Gertrude Crisp v. Scioto Ambulance Dist.
Amy DiChiara v. Summit Medical Group, Inc.
Jaleelah Hassan Ahmed v. Hamtramck Pub. Schs.
Daniel Paris v. MacAllister Machinery Co., Inc.
Andrea Tumbleson v. Lakota Local Sch. Dist.
Rieth-Riley Constr. Co., Inc. v. NLRB
Rieth-Riley Constr. Co. v. NLRB
Adam Foust v. General Motors, LLC
LaNetra Kellar v. The Yunion, Inc.
Prentice
Reuben Jelani Adams v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty. Gov't
Robinson
Starks
Cammon
Jalal
Strong
Seguin
Epler
Roberson
Beccia
King
Pierce
Whitsell
Turner
Keel-Haywood 958405 v. Union Supply Direct Group
Doamekpor
Vrabel
Jones
Jahnke
Wilcox
Boards of Trustees of the Ohio Laborers Benefits v. Crowe Construction Inc
Secretary of U.S. Department of Labor v. Azteca Restaurante Mexicano, Inc.
Dibwe
Andrea Jaye Mosby v. Reaves Law Firm PLLC
Board of Trustees of the Southern Ohio Painters Health & Welfare Fund v. Sixth Region Remodeling, LLC
Saylor
Roque Perez v. A&A Staffing Solutions L.L.C
Nedlina
Catalano
Bull
Israel
Harrington
Piddock
Jones
Spicer
Walker
Showing 1–50 of 1,113 rulings · Page 1 of 23
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.