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.
Hardman
National Labor Relations Board, Petitioner/cross-Respondent v. St. Francis Healthcare Centre, Respondent/cross-Petitioner
NLRB v. St. Francis Health
American Civ. Liberties Union v. McCreary Cty, Ky.
American Civ. Liberties Union v. Pulaski Cty, Ky.
Woodrow W. Dawahare v. Adam A. Spencer Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. Smith Barney, Inc.
American Civil Liberties Union v. Capitol Square Review & Advisory Board
Farm Labor Organizing Committee v. Ohio State Highway Patrol
Workman
Copeland Oaks and Copeland Oaks Employee Benefit Plan v. Jeffrey A. Haupt and Brooke A. Haupt
Gibbons
Hogan
National Labor Relations Board v. Teamsters Local No. 372
National Labor Relations Board v. Teamsters Local No. 372
Butcher
Lozada
Asarco, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor
Donald Linville William R. Gaitten, Estate of v. Teamsters Miscellaneous and Industrial Workers Union, Local 284
Wyandot, Inc., Plaintiff/ Counter-Defendant-Appellee v. Local 227, United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Defendant/counter-Plaintiff-Appellant
Richards
Lopez
Frank
Island Creek Coal Company v. Arthur W. Holdman, (Deceased) Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor
Massey
Teamsters Local Union 299 v. U.S. Truck Co. Holdings, Inc.
Hamrick
Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, Local 7-629, Afl-Cio v. Rmi Titanium Company
Mohat
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Roadway Express, Inc.
Comm'n v. Outback Steakhouse of Florida, Inc.
Reynolds
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Northwest Airlines, Inc.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. E.J. Sacco, Inc.
Howell
Lamont
Brown
Trocheck
Blough
Marcum
Summerville
Albert J. SCOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee
William BAGSBY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CENTRAL STATES, SOUTHEAST & SOUTHWEST AREAS PENSION FUND, Defendant-Appellee
Rutlin
Hall
Dorsey
Hall
Warg
Isaac FORD, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNIROYAL PENSION PLAN, Defendant-Appellee
Hummel
Spectronics Corp. v. TCI/TKR of Jefferson County, Inc.
Showing 1,951–2,000 of 2,139 rulings · Page 40 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.