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 871 published rulings we track here (1979–2026), 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 871 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 863 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 191 summary-judgment rulings here, 129 ended the case in the employer’s favor and 62 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
- East Penn Manufacturing Company, Inc.7
- School District of Philadelphia5
- Philadelphia Housing Authority4
- United States Postal Service4
- BAYADA Home Health Care, Inc.3
- Johnson & Johnson3
States in This Circuit
Browse rulings from courts in each state the Third Circuit covers.
Recent Rulings in the Third Circuit
THOMAS
ADAMS
SAMPSON
LANGLEY
MOSKOWITZ
DRAPIKOWSKI
KOWAL
TRUSTEES OF INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PAINTERS AND ALLIED TRADES DISTRICT COUNCIL 711 HEALTH & WELFARE FUND v. CAPE SIGN SERVICE, INC.
Kathleen Fowler v. AT&T Inc
SCALIA
INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION OF NEW JERSEY, INC. v. INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS, LOCAL UNION NO. 825
TRUSTEES OF INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PAINTERS AND ALLIED TRADES DISTRICT COUNCIL 711 HEALTH & WELFARE FUND v. INDEPENDENT WALLCOVERING, INC.
Balkiewicz
APARICIO
SPRUILL
Morales
LIN
MUNOZ
DE BLOCK v. SPEEDWAY LLC
DEVINE
CHRISTOPHERSON
Samuels
SANABRIA
MORZINE
HERNANDEZ
WELCHKO
Bliss-Miller
MILANO
Higgins
INTERRANTE
Bone
SCALIA
JOHNSON v. MATTRESS WAREHOUSE, INC.
Matias
IBEW LOCAL UNION 351 WELFARE FUND v. GERBER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
LAMBADARIOS MOFFETT v. WOODLAKE PROPERTIES, LLC
NEW JERSEY BUILDING LABORERS' STATEWIDE PENSION FUND AND TRUSTEES THEREOF v. LANGHAN DEVELOPMENT LLC
DEJESUS
TRUSTEES OF THE NATIONAL ELEVATOR INDUSTRY PENSION FUND v. EASTERN ELEVATOR SERVICE, INC.
PUSKAR
Independent Laboratory Employe v. ExxonMobil Research and Engine
MAMMEN, M.D., M.P.H. v. THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY
ADAM
SIMON
TRUSTEES OF TEAMSTERS HEALTH & WELFARE FUND OF PHILADELPHIA & VICINITY v. MOULTON LADDER & SCAFFOLDING, LLC
Jones
Anderson
MCMANUS
DuPont Specialty Products USA v. NLRB
BRUCE
Showing 301–350 of 871 rulings · Page 7 of 18
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.