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
J. SUPOR & SON TRUCKING & RIGGING CO., INC. v. TRUCKING EMPLOYEES OF NORTH JERSEY WELFARE FUND
GASPER
WELCH FOODS, INC. v. GENERAL TEAMSTERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 397
THOMPSON
HSUEH
James
CARTER
MULLEN
Crozer-Chester Medical Center v. NLRB
In re: Allergan Erisa v.
SAVAGE
YINGST
VAVASES
IAPICHINO
MZM Construction Co Inc v. NJ Building Laborers Statewide
Essington
Butler v. Hanover Foods Corp.
Spicer
NEFF
LOCKE
DRAZDIK
LARA
MITCHELL v. NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION
TONG
WEST
HAGHIGHI, DDS, MD v. HORIZON BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF NEW JERSEY
AHMETASEVIC
ALSTON
SORATHIA
HAPCO
Adam Rosen v. Superintendent Mahanoy SCI
MURRAY
FRITZ
RUSSO
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION v. HIOSSEN, INC.
HIOSSEN, INC. v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
BOOCKVAR
SHEET METAL WORKERS' HEALTH & WELFARE FUND OF LOCAL NO. 19 v. INVISION SIGN LLC
SADATI
Reed
TRUSTEES OF INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PAINTERS AND ALLIED TRADES DISTRICT COUNCIL 711 HEALTH & WELFARE FUND v. PAPER MASTER, LLC
PEPITONE
ADAM
TRUSTEES OF INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PAINTERS AND ALLIED TRADES DISTRICT COUNCIL 711 HEALTH & WELFARE FUND v. BRITE-PAINTING & DECORATING CO., INC.
HUFFMAN
CARRONE
JURIC
CANADA
ADVANCED ORTHOPEDICS AND SPORTS MEDICINE INSTITUTE v. INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 14-14B
BEACHUM
Showing 1,051–1,100 of 2,094 rulings · Page 22 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.