566 employment law court rulings from public federal records (1977–2026)
81 of 538 adjudicated opinions ended in a plaintiff win.
Constructive discharge occurs when an employer makes working conditions so intolerable that a reasonable person would feel compelled to resign. The employee must show that the employer deliberately created or knowingly permitted conditions that were so difficult that resignation was a foreseeable consequence. These claims are often paired with underlying discrimination or harassment allegations.
Employers most frequently appearing in constructive discharge rulings.
The plaintiff employee sought to recover damages from the defendant employer, alleging that he was constructively discharged in violation of public policy. The plaintiff had been employed as a licensed optician manager in the defendant's optical department in a JCPenney store and alleged that the…
The plaintiff, John Ferreira, appealed from the dismissal of his first amended complaint against his former employer, Child and Family Services of Newport County. The plaintiff had asserted claims such as defamation constructive termination discrimination based on disparate treatment, age, and…
Trial court did not err in ruling on appellant's motion to compel or in its determination that appellant's statistical evidence was not probative of discrimination.
The plaintiff, a former tenured schoolteacher, sued the Williamson County Board of Education and three administrators alleging that she was forced to resign after the defendants "bullied, stalked, intimidated, and defamed" her during the 2015–2016 school year. She asserted claims for wrongful…
Showing 251–300 of 566 rulings · Page 6 of 12
Explore rulings by type of employment law claim.
Check which employment laws may protect you — free, private, and no sign-up required.
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 claim types is based on automated analysis and may not reflect the full scope of each case.