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
Local Union No. 5 Trustees of the Bricklayers and Masons', Ohio Pension Fund v. Masonry Contracting Corporation
Kavalec
Gradall Industries, Inc. v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District Lodge 54
Scalia
James Perna v. Health One Credit Union
McDaniel
Marcum
Altenhofen
Gilbo
Polch
McDaniel
Bolyard
Pledger
Sharqawi
Lankford
Hickle
Luster
Flynn
Walters
Aday
Swickheimer
Pairan
Trustees of Ohio Bricklayers Health and Welfare Fund v. Ohio Building Maintenance Leasing, Inc.
Boards of Trustees of the Ohio Laborers Benefits v. USA Concrete Specialists, Inc.
Nitch
NLRB v. Roemer Indus., Inc.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Publix Super Markets, Inc.
Freeman
Hammond
Bailey
Reed
Peskin
Gadagbui
Joseph Caimona v. Ohio Civil Service Employees
Littler
Potts
Jones
Headspeth
Outlaw Laboratory, LP v. Van Born & Pelham Petro, Inc.
Outlaw Laboratory, LP v. I 94 PETROLEUM INC.
Outlaw Laboratory, LP v. OPDYKE GAS STATION INC
Outlaw Laboratory, LP v. SYLVAN CONVENIENCE INC.
Fitzgerald
Blaylock
Bailey
Rodenbeck
Terrell
Directors of the Ohio Conference of Plasterers and Cement Masons Combined Funds, Inc. v. ACL General Contracting Inc.
Challenge Mfg. Co. v. NLRB
Adams
Showing 351–400 of 1,113 rulings · Page 8 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.