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 1,113 published rulings we track here (1971–2026), 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 1,113 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 1,109 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 290 summary-judgment rulings here, 209 ended the case in the employer’s favor and 81 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
- General Motors Corporation7
- United States Postal Service7
- U.S. Bank National Association4
- General Motors, LLC4
- Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County4
- United Parcel Service, Inc.4
States in This Circuit
Browse rulings from courts in each state the Sixth Circuit covers.
Recent Rulings in the Sixth Circuit
Cassaday
Miller v. HG Ohio Employee Holding Corp.
Yorba
Myles
Radair, LLC v. Alaska Airlines, Inc.
Operating Engineers Local 324 Fringe Benefit Funds v. Unique Construction and Services, LLC
Melvin
Beaver
Kerwin
Thompson
Kramer
Allied Federation, Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees Division of International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
Finnegan
Rolle
Holladay
Thomas
Sheard
Brown
Cardinal Health, Inc. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins.
Sandeen
Verso Corporation v. United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC
Fassa
Scarbrough
Laborers' Int'l Union of N.A. v. Terease Neff
Cobbs
Hart
Milligan
Simmons
Tassy
Boards of Trustees of the Ohio Laborers Benefits v. Atlas General Construction LLC
Trustees of the Iron Workers Local Union 17 Pension Fund v. 21st Century Concrete Construction Inc.
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Sherwood Food Distributors, LLC
Bradley
Wehrly
Local 894 Laborers' International Union of North America v. Kenny/Obayashi V
Graham
The Ohio Adjutant General's Dep't v. Fed. Lab. Relations Auth.
Rosado-Cruz
Hooper
Eberle
Ries
Robert Sloat v. Hewlett-Packard Enter. Co.
Northington
Jamoua
Edward Monroe v. FTS USA, LLC
Reams
O'Bryant
Scobey
Greenhouse Holdings, LLC v. International Union of Painters and Allied Trades District Council 91
Cassaday
Showing 251–300 of 1,113 rulings · Page 6 of 23
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.