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 1,773 published rulings we track here (1973–2026), the breakdowns below show how they were decided. They describe published opinions only — not the odds of any particular situation.
Of the 1,773 published rulings we track in the Third Circuit.
A workplace lawsuit moves through stages, and a ruling can end it at any of them. Here is where the 1,760 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 433 summary-judgment rulings here, 244 ended the case in the employer’s favor and 188 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.
Browse rulings from courts in each state the Third Circuit covers.
Winters
Rudolph
Falzett
Ferris
Eastampton Center, LLC v. Township of Eastampton
Pryor
Moore-Duncan
Federal Deposit Insurance v. National Union Fire Insurance
Wallace
Bill Gray Enterprises, Incorporated Employee Health And Welfare Plan v. Ronald L. Gourley
Gourley
In Re Rite Aid Corp. Securities Litigation
Kunwar
Elliott, Reihner, Siedzikowski & Egan, P.C. v. Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust Fund
Fraser
James Barbera v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor Global Terminal and Container Services, Inc
Quick
Zapach
New Castle County De v. National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa
New Castle County v. Natl Union Fire Ins
Atlantic Limousine, Inc., No. 99-5609 v. National Labor Relations Board, National Labor Relations Board, No. 99-5725 v. Atlantic Limousine, Inc.
Atlantic Limousine v. NLRB
In Re: Unisys Corp.
Union Railroad v. United Steelworkers of America
Cameli
Szydlowski
Flannick
Law
Transport Workers Union of Philadelphia, Loc. 234 v. Transport Workers Union of America
Davies
Mroczek
Hudson County Carpenters Local Union No. 6 v. V.S.R. Construction Corp.
Moore-Duncan Ex Rel. National Labor Relations Board v. Aldworth Co.
Fugarino
Gadinski
Taylor
Chavarry Ex Rel. National Labor Relations Board v. Innovative Communications Corp.
Frank P. Ieradi v. Mylan Laboratories, Inc.
Ieradi
Foley
United Transportation Union Local 759 v. Orange Newark Elizabeth Bus, Inc.
National Labor Relations Board v. Prime Energy Ltd. Partnership
Orvosh
United Food & Commercial Workers Union v. Fleming Foods East, Inc.
Sotack
Dubose
Cadapult Graphic Systems, Inc. v. Tektronix, Inc.
Cortes
Sallada
Foley
Showing 1,651–1,700 of 1,773 rulings · Page 34 of 36
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.