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
S&J WHOLESALE, LLC v. Alkitchmall (Seller ID: A2S9WQ2NR9EYP3)
Bulas
Van Cleave v. University of the South, The
Operating Engineers Local 324 Fringe Benefit Funds v. Unique Construction and Services, LLC
Enoch
Steward
Rembert
Bulas
Pipe Fitters Local Union No. 120 v. Qwest Mechanical Contractors
Fortin
Beaver
Arkona, LLC v. Cheboygan, County of
Kerwin
Thompson
Arteaga
Board
Kramer
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 252 Pension Plan v. Apple Current Co.
Allied Federation, Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees Division of International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
Finnegan
Rolle
Holladay
Walters
Thomas
Reid
Klein
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. Honeywell International Inc.
Johnson v. Pennyrile Allied Community Services
Carden
Hrdlicka
Sheard
Brown
Cardinal Health, Inc. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins.
Adams-Gillard
Adams
Sandeen
Sullivan
Holmes
Beardman
Verso Corporation v. United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC
Fassa
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Red Roof Inns, Inc.
Zwick
Laborers' Int'l Union of N.A. v. Terease Neff
Baltrusaitis
Thornton
Simmons
Tassy
Boards of Trustees of the Ohio Laborers Benefits v. Atlas General Construction LLC
Loew
Showing 701–750 of 2,531 rulings · Page 15 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.