Skip to main content
Claim Type

Discrimination Cases

8,273 employment law court rulings from public federal records (18892026)

8,273
Total Rulings
13%
Plaintiff Win Rate
$2,887,299
Avg Damages (491 cases)
S.D.N.Y.
Top Court

About Discrimination Claims

Employment discrimination occurs when an employer treats an employee or applicant unfavorably because of a protected characteristic such as race, sex, age, disability, or religion. Federal laws including Title VII, the ADA, and the ADEA prohibit workplace discrimination. These cases often involve claims of disparate treatment or disparate impact on protected groups.

Case Outcomes

Defendant Win
3509 (42%)
Dismissed
1451 (18%)
Mixed Result
1450 (18%)
Plaintiff Win
1114 (13%)
Remanded
605 (7%)
Settlement
143 (2%)
Other
1 (0%)

Top Employers in Discrimination Cases

Employers most frequently appearing in discrimination rulings.

Union Pacific Railroad Company
94 discrimination rulings
United States Postal Service
55 discrimination rulings
Abbott Laboratories
32 discrimination rulings
United Parcel Service, Inc.
28 discrimination rulings
New York State Department of Labor
28 discrimination rulings

Court Rulings (8,273)

Stuppard-Wilson
N.D. Ga.Aug 28, 2025Georgia
Dismissed
Rackett
M.D. Fla.Aug 28, 2025Florida
Settlement
Maresca
E.D.N.Y.Aug 28, 2025New York
Dismissed
Williams v. Harry's Nurses Registry, Inc.
E.D.N.Y.Aug 28, 2025New York
Dismissed
Glynn
E.D. Mo.Aug 28, 2025Missouri
Dismissed
Haskell
N.D. Cal.Aug 27, 2025California
Defendant Win
Ellis
M.D. Fla.Aug 27, 2025Florida
Dismissed
Celli
S.D.N.Y.Aug 27, 2025New York
Dismissed
Wakatani
E.D. Wis.Aug 27, 2025Wisconsin
Plaintiff Win
Bethel
S.D. Ala.Aug 27, 2025Alabama
Settlement
Campbell
D.S.C.Aug 27, 2025New York
Mixed Result
Topps
D. Ariz.Aug 27, 2025Arizona
Dismissed
Citizens Defending Freedom v. Arlington Independent School District
N.D. Tex.Aug 27, 2025Texas
Defendant Win
Strandquist
W.D. Wash.Aug 26, 2025Washington
Dismissed
Frompovicz
M.D. Pa.Aug 26, 2025Pennsylvania
Mixed Result
Blanco
S.D.N.Y.Aug 26, 2025New York
Dismissed
Clark v. Employees' Review Board
Unknown CourtAug 26, 2025

The plaintiff, a former managerial employee of the Department of Revenue Services who was not included in any collective bargaining agreement, appealed from the trial court's judgment dismissing her appeal from the decision of the defendant board, which found that the department's decision to terminate the plaintiff's employment was not arbitrary or taken without reasonable cause pursuant to statute (§ 5-202 (c)). The plaintiff claimed, inter alia, that the court failed to use the proper just cause standard applicable to permanent state employees. Held: The trial court properly upheld the department's decision to terminate the plaintiff's employment utilizing a just cause standard pursuant to the applica- ble statute (§ 5-240) and regulation (§ 5-240-1a (c)), as the plaintiff's asser- tions that she was entitled to progressive discipline prior to the termination of her employment or to the application of the common-law seven step test to determine just cause conflicted with the statutory and regulatory definitions that the legislature has adopted for nonunion employees. The trial court did not make certain improper legal and factual findings that were not made by the defendant, as the court correctly determined that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the termination of the plaintiff's employment on the basis of her engagement in activities that were detrimental to the best interest of the department and that the defendant's finding of just cause was supported by substantial evidence. The trial court properly dismissed the plaintiff's administrative appeal, as there was substantial evidence in the record to support the defendant's factual findings and the termination of the plaintiff's employment from state service for just cause. Argued February 11—officially released August 26, 2025

Mixed Result
Serrett
W.D.N.Y.Aug 26, 2025New York
Remanded
Rashid
D. Nev.Aug 26, 2025Nevada
Dismissed
Hoskins
S.D. Cal.Aug 26, 2025California
Defendant Win
Ferreiras
E.D. Ky.Aug 26, 2025Kentucky
Dismissed
Harrison
D.S.C.Aug 26, 2025South Carolina
Mixed Result
Trusov
D. Or.Aug 26, 2025Oregon
Dismissed
Queen
D. Kan.Aug 26, 2025Kansas
Dismissed
Gearhart
D. Colo.Aug 25, 2025Colorado
Dismissed
Jallaq v.US Department of Homeland Security, Secretary of
E.D. Mich.Aug 25, 2025Michigan
Dismissed
Maneman
W.D. Wash.Aug 25, 2025Washington
Dismissed
Schuchardt
D. IdahoAug 25, 2025Idaho
Dismissed
Libonati
M.D. Fla.Aug 25, 2025Florida
Dismissed
Floyd
M.D. Fla.Aug 25, 2025Florida
Settlement
Smith v. Wal-Mart, Inc.
W.D. Mich.Aug 22, 2025Michigan
Dismissed
Martinez
W.D. Wash.Aug 22, 2025Washington
Mixed Result
Ealom
N.D. OhioAug 22, 2025Ohio
Mixed Result
Hicks
M.D. Tenn.Aug 22, 2025Tennessee
Dismissed
KEHL
W.D. Pa.Aug 22, 2025Pennsylvania
Plaintiff Win$1,905,360 awarded
Pletsch
N.D. Ill.Aug 22, 2025Illinois
Mixed Result
FINCH
W.D. Pa.Aug 22, 2025Pennsylvania
Defendant Win
Carfora
S.D.N.Y.Aug 22, 2025New York
Dismissed
R.
D. UtahAug 22, 2025Utah
Dismissed
Dees
D. Colo.Aug 21, 2025Colorado
Dismissed
Davis
S.D. Ill.Aug 21, 2025Illinois
Dismissed
Lee v. Dobberstein Law Firm LLC
E.D. Wis.Aug 21, 2025Wisconsin
Defendant Win
Villa
D. Ariz.Aug 21, 2025Arizona
Mixed Result
RACHWALSKI
S.D. Ind.Aug 21, 2025Indiana
Dismissed
Pearson
E.D. Pa.Aug 21, 2025Pennsylvania
Dismissed
Lester
D. Nev.Aug 21, 2025Nevada
Defendant Win
Tomlinson
E.D. Mich.Aug 21, 2025Michigan
Dismissed
Porter
C.D. Ill.Aug 20, 2025Illinois
Dismissed
RUTH
E.D. Pa.Aug 20, 2025Pennsylvania
Defendant Win
PERRY
W.D. Tenn.Aug 20, 2025Tennessee
Dismissed

Showing 601650 of 8,273 rulings · Page 13 of 166

Think you may have a discrimination 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.