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
Michigan Electrical Employees' Pension Fund v. Markee Electric, Inc.
Hatmaker
Strickland
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Safie Specialty Foods Company, Inc.
Roberts
Outlaw Laboratory, LP v. 902 Dort Inc.
Jordan
Kanu
Emch
Fisher
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. West Meade Place, LLP
Wheatt
in Re: Papa John's Employee and Franchisee Employee Antitrust Litigation
Young
Holladay
Slaughter
Van Hauter v. First Watch Restaurant, Inc.
Adams
Boards of Trustees of the Ohio Laborers Benefits v. Paschal, Bihn & Sons, LLC
Downey
Russell
Friend
IUOE Local 324 Retirement Trust Fund v. LGC Global FM, LLC
Adams
Brown
Cowan
Giesman
Charter Communications, Inc. v. NLRB
Ozburn-Hessey Logistics, LLC v. NLRB
Rebecca Buddenberg v. Robert Weisdack
Davita Inc. v. Marietta Memorial Hospital Employee Health Benefit Plan
Demange
Roseman
Arends
Powell
Osterman
Ganci
Al-Menhali
Meriwether
Boards of Trustees of Ohio Laborers' Fringe Benefit Programs v. Freisthler Paving, Inc.
Lemon
Watkins
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
Showing 1,151–1,200 of 2,531 rulings · Page 24 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.