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 2,139 published rulings we track here (1964–2026), the breakdowns below show how they were decided. They describe published opinions only — not the odds of any particular situation.
Of the 2,139 published rulings we track in the Sixth Circuit.
A workplace lawsuit moves through stages, and a ruling can end it at any of them. Here is where the 2,123 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 563 summary-judgment rulings here, 333 ended the case in the employer’s favor and 230 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.
Browse rulings from courts in each state the Sixth Circuit covers.
Hayes
Powell
Osterman
Boards of Trustees of Ohio Laborers' Fringe Benefit Programs v. Freisthler Paving, Inc.
Lemon
Karla Brintley v. Belle River Community Credit Union
Charleston Laboratories, Inc. v. John Ameling
Karla Brintley v. Belle River Community Credit Union
Williams v. Wright-Patt Credit Union
Union Commercial Servs. v. FCA Int'l Operations
Lawrence Kosa v. Int'l Union United Auto
Kenneth Miller v. Retirement Program Plan for Employees of Consolidated Nuclear Security
Corbin
Holloway
Smith v. The Matheson Tri-Gas Medical Plan
Ratcliffe
Tucker
Watson
Marathon Petroleum Co. v. NLRB
Seldomridge
Kokosing Construction Company, Inc. v. Local 860 Laborers' International Union of North America
Coutu
Jerremy Dyer v. Ventra Sandusky
Zawada
Hendrickson United States, LLC. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
Maritas
The Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, and Its Employee Welfare Plan v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan
Fitzgerald
Peck
Erickson Trucking Serv., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
Firstenergy Generation, LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
Daily
SOL
Karen Briggs v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co.
Karen Briggs v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co.
AES-Apex Employer Servs. v. Dino Rotondo
SOL
Mitchell v. Bmi Fed. Credit Union
Adam Bogart v. Univ. of Ky.
Am. Mun. Power, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
Econ. Linen & Towel Serv., Inc. v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, Teamsters Local Union 637
Airgas USA, LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
Christine Adair v. Johnny Hunter
Airgas USA v. NLRB
Sec. Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Jamestown Union Bancshares, Inc.
Clark v. Teamsters Local Union 651
Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers & Grain Millers, Int'l Union AFL-CIO v. Kellogg Co.
Mason v. Adams Cnty. Recorder
Darryl Mason v. Adams Cty. Recorder
Darryl Mason v. Adams Cty. Recorder
Showing 901–950 of 2,139 rulings · Page 19 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.