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.
Grutter
Eeoc v. At&t Co.
Bond
Benito T. PEREZ, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee
Burtner
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. United Ass'n of Journeymen & Apprentices of the Plumbing & Pipefitting Industry, Local 120
Amini
Black v. Barberton Citizens Hospital
Lowery
Lombard
Glass, Molders, Pottery, Plastics & Allied Workers International Union, Local 421 v. A-CMI Michigan Casting Center
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Prevo's Family Market, Inc.
CASTELLER
Kvintus
Tomblin
Primes
Raciti-Hur
Ellis
Glenn R. Black, M.D. v. Barberton Citizens Hospital
21 Employee Benefits Cas. 2249, Pens. Plan Guide (Cch) P 23940b
Shannahan
Olsen
Schaub Ex Rel. National Labor Relations Board v. Detroit Newspaper Agency
Frito-Lay
Ahlers
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Frank's Nursery & Crafts, Inc.
Walker
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Ford Motor Company
Pens. Plan Guide P 23927r Richard L. Amato v. Equicor Severance Pay Plan
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Freedom Adult Foster Care Corp.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Allen Petroleum Company of East Tennessee, Inc., D/B/A Okee Dokee No. 18
International Union v. Aluminum Co. of America
Stefanovic
Coffey
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Chrysler Corp.
Fritz
Creager
Jerrold MOOS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. the SQUARE D COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. United Association of Journeymen
19 Employee Benefits Cas. 2351, Pens. Plan Guide P 23915t Ernest L. Akers v. Valfrid E. Palmer Alco Gravure Industries, Inc., Donald H. McKinnon
Raines
Hiefner
Javetz
Coffman
McFarland
Hakken
Thompson
Ham
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Walden Book Co.
Curtis L. Wrenn v. Tony E. Gallegos, Chairman, Eeoc
Showing 2,001–2,050 of 2,139 rulings · Page 41 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.