Employment Rulings in the Third Circuit
The Third Circuit covers the federal courts in Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The rulings below come from the circuit's court of appeals and the federal trial courts within it.
Of the 2,094 published rulings we track here (1967–2026), 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 2,094 published rulings we track in the Third 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 2,060 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 357 summary-judgment rulings here, 219 ended the case in the employer’s favor and 137 let the worker’s claims continue; the rest resolved in other ways.
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
- Trans Union, LLC9
- United States Postal Service8
- Abbott Laboratories8
- D.A. Nolt, Inc.8
- East Penn Manufacturing Company, Inc.7
- BP Exploration & Production, Inc.7
States in This Circuit
Browse rulings from courts in each state the Third Circuit covers.
Recent Rulings in the Third Circuit
SARWAR
THE LABORERS DISTRICT COUNCIL CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY PENSION FUND v. MINISCALCO CORPORATION
Pierre
N. W. v. UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH
Chinniah
Michelsen
WHITMORE
N. W. v. UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH
IBEW LOCAL UNION NO. 102 v. NEW WHITE ELECTRIC, INC.
FISCHER
TONG
Zoppas Industries de Mexico S.A. de C.V. v. Backer EHP, Inc.
AUSTIN v. GIANT FOOD STORES
KANE
TRUSTEES OF THE NATIONAL ELEVATOR INDUSTRY PENSION FUND v. Maple Management LLC d/b/a RAE Lifts
SHAPLEY
SAIYED
ROSS COOPERMAN, M.D., LLC v. HORIZON BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF NEW JERSEY
Zhaojin Ke v. Pennsylvania State Employees R
GREENBERG
ROPER
EASTERDAY
DOE
Laborers Local 231 Pension v. Rory Cowan
JONES
Conard
Henkel
COPLEY
DIFLAVIS
ZOHNI
DOYLE
MECCA
ROBERTS
HANNA
BOARD OF TRUSTEES, ROOFERS UNION LOCAL 30 COMBINED HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND v. HUGHES URETHANE CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
Andrea Irizarry v. Abbott Laboratories
MARLAND
Boley
Bolus
THE INDEPENDENCE PROJECT, INC. v. JCR MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.
SMITH v. RB DISTRIBUTION, INC.
Fischer
Bolus
LUSTGARTEN
JONES
STEAMFITTERS UNION, LOCAL 420 WELFARE FUND v.DIRECT AIR, LLC
LOTT
MWIMBWA
NJ BUILDING LABORERS CONSTRUCTION LABORERS DISTRICT COUNCIL, NEW JERSEY BUILDING LABORERS STATEWIDE BENEFIT FUNDS and the TRUSTEES THEREOF v. NOVA CRETE INC.
ADAMS-BUFFALOE
Showing 1,001–1,050 of 2,094 rulings · Page 21 of 42
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.