Employment Rulings in the Tenth Circuit
The Tenth Circuit covers the federal courts in Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming. The rulings below come from the circuit's court of appeals and the federal trial courts within it.
Of the 1,434 published rulings we track here (1972–2026), 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 1,434 published rulings we track in the Tenth 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 1,369 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 242 summary-judgment rulings here, 162 ended the case in the employer’s favor and 80 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
States in This Circuit
Browse rulings from courts in each state the Tenth Circuit covers.
Recent Rulings in the Tenth Circuit
Cole
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Brown-Thompson General Partnership
Peterson
Hakeem
Mansour
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Roark-Whitten Hospitality 2, LP
Branch
Kahler
EEOC v. Centura Health
Collardey
Vollenweider
Wexler
Christensen
Krehbiel
Peabody Twentymile Mining v. Secretary of Labor
Union Pacific Railroad v. Utah State Tax Commission
BAC Local Union 15 Welfare Fund v. Williams Restoration Company, Inc.
GCIU-Employer Retirement Fund v. Coleridge Fine Arts
United Government Security Officers of America International Union v. American Eagle Protective Service
Frazier
Hund
Kelvion, Inc. v. PetroChina Canada Ltd.
NLRB v. Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating
Bay
Bay
People's Trust Fed. Credit Union v. Nat'l Credit Union Admin. Bd.
Bellwether Cmty. Credit Union v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.
Brown
Salemi
Hockaday
Canyon Fuel Company v. Secretary of Labor
Jake's Fireworks v. Department of Labor
Peavy
National Union Fire Insurance v. Federal Insurance Co.
Hankishiyev
Dish Network v. NLRB
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Jetstream Ground Services, Inc.
Teets v. Great-West Life & Annuity Ins. Co.
Adams
Laurich v. Red Lobster Rests., LLC
Laul
Armstrong
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. CollegeAmerica Denver, Inc.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Montrose Memorial Hospital
Adams
GCIU-Employer Retirement Fund v. Coleridge Fine Arts
Lovato
Selco Community Credit Union v. Noodles & Co.
Tucker
Pioneer Centres Holding Co. Employee Stock Ownership Plan & Trust v. Alerus Financial, N.A.
Showing 901–950 of 1,434 rulings · Page 19 of 29
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.