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 2,531 published rulings we track here (1949–2026), 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 2,531 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 2,489 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 484 summary-judgment rulings here, 285 ended the case in the employer’s favor and 199 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
- Ford Motor Company11
- United States Postal Service11
- General Motors Corporation9
- General Motors, LLC8
- United Parcel Service, Inc.8
- Abbott Laboratories7
States in This Circuit
Browse rulings from courts in each state the Sixth Circuit covers.
Recent Rulings in the Sixth Circuit
Holmes
Bradley
Brewer
STATE OF OHIO ex rel Janell Smith v. City of Huber Heights Ohio
Burrell
McVaney
Broadgate, Inc. v. Secretary, Department of Labor
Creger
Clark v. Louisville Jefferson County Metro Government
Bonds
EEOC v. The Ohio State University
U.S. Department of Justice v. Ables d/b/a Pops Cove
Polly's Food Service, Incorporated v. United Food & Commercial Workers International Union - Industry Pension Fund
Hornback
Pasha
Hicks
Trustees of the Bricklayers and Masons' Local Union No. 5 Ohio Pension Fund v. United Masonry Construction Co, LLC
McElhaney
Chabaan
Cassaday
Wriggelsworth
Vass
Vest
Luebs
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Red Roof Inns, Inc.
Crowe
Ramos
Carte
McClurg
Cassaday
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Whiting-Turner Contracting Company, The
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Whiting-Turner Contracting Company, The
Askew
Cassaday
The Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, and Its Employee Welfare Plan v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan
Zarza
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Clarksville Health System, G.P.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Proctor Financial, Inc.
Marcus
Bannum Place of Saginaw, LLC v. NLRB
Cassaday
Cassaday
Miller v. HG Ohio Employee Holding Corp.
Barber
Nolan
Myles
VanDyke
Yost
Conway
Radair, LLC v. Alaska Airlines, Inc.
Showing 651–700 of 2,531 rulings · Page 14 of 51
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.