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)

Lozada
D.P.R.Mar 28, 2022Puerto Rico
Defendant Win
Powell Bey v. Westbury Union Free School District
E.D.N.Y.Mar 28, 2022New York
Defendant Win
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Red Roof Inns, Inc.
S.D. OhioMar 28, 2022Ohio
Mixed Result
JOSEPH
W.D. Pa.Mar 25, 2022Pennsylvania
Defendant Win
Freud
S.D.N.Y.Mar 25, 2022New York
Defendant Win
Sobaszkiewicz
N.D. Cal.Mar 25, 2022California
Remanded
Moncion
S.D.N.Y.Mar 25, 2022New York
Dismissed
VILLAGOMEZ
N.D. Cal.Mar 25, 2022California
Defendant Win
Jones
Ohio Ct. App.Mar 24, 2022

Directed verdict Civ.R. 50 de novo review age discrimination prima facie case direct evidence statements by employer indirect evidence reasonable inference reduction in force business considerations breach of contract renewal of contract assignment meeting of the minds essential terms promissory estoppel damages. The trial court did not err in granting a directed verdict on all of appellant's claims. Appellant failed to present direct or indirect evidence of his age-discrimination claim. Further, appellant did not demonstrate a prima facie case of breach of contract because there was no meeting of the minds, and the alleged contract lacked essential terms. Finally, appellant did not present evidence of damages in support of his promissory-estoppel claim.

Defendant Win
Choy
N.D. Ill.Mar 24, 2022Illinois
Dismissed
Lashley
D.S.C.Mar 24, 2022South Carolina
Plaintiff Win
CARR
W.D. Pa.Mar 23, 2022Pennsylvania
Defendant Win
MOZELESKI
E.D. Pa.Mar 23, 2022Pennsylvania
Defendant Win
Garner
D. Colo.Mar 23, 2022Colorado
Dismissed
Dooley
D. Nev.Mar 23, 2022Nevada
Remanded
BROWN
W.D. Pa.Mar 23, 2022Pennsylvania
Mixed Result
Austin v. ABC Legal
N.D. Cal.Mar 22, 2022California
Dismissed
Fazaei
N.D. Cal.Mar 21, 2022California
Defendant Win
Kimble
N.D. Ga.Mar 21, 2022Georgia
Mixed Result
Krow
S.D.N.Y.Mar 21, 2022New York
Defendant Win
Taylor
N.D. Tex.Mar 21, 2022Texas
Dismissed
Simmons
W.D. Ky.Mar 18, 2022Kentucky
Dismissed
Rinker
OHIOCTCLMar 18, 2022

Retaliation discrimination Civ.R. 53 objections to magistrate's decision. Plaintiffs, employees of the Ohio State Racing Commission (OSRC), objected to the magistrate's decision recommending judgment for defendant. Plaintiffs alleged OSRC retaliated against them for engaging in the protected activity of filing a discrimination complaint with the Ohio Department of Administrative Services Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO). After a review of the magistrate's decision and the evidence submitted, the court found that the retaliatory actions alleged by plaintiffs were insufficient to dissuade an employee from alleging discrimination. Further, the court found that these actions were supported by legitimate business purposes. Accordingly, the court overruled plaintiffs' objections to the magistrate's decision and rendered judgment for defendant.

Defendant Win
Griswold
D. Colo.Mar 18, 2022Colorado
Dismissed
HEWES
D. Me.Mar 18, 2022Maine
Mixed Result
Alexander
S.D.N.Y.Mar 18, 2022New York
Plaintiff Win$150,000 awarded
Chavez
N.D. Cal.Mar 18, 2022California
Settlement$4,250,000 awarded
Thornton
E.D. Mich.Mar 18, 2022Maine
Remanded
Best
M.D. Pa.Mar 17, 2022Pennsylvania
Dismissed
TANGRADI
E.D. Pa.Mar 17, 2022Pennsylvania
Defendant Win
Monica Prosper v. Thomson Reuters et.al
S.D.N.Y.Mar 17, 2022New York
Defendant Win
McDonald
D. Ariz.Mar 16, 2022Arizona
Dismissed
Sweikata
D.S.C.Mar 15, 2022South Carolina
Defendant Win
BELL v. O'REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES LLC
D. Me.Mar 15, 2022Maine
Plaintiff Win$300,000 awarded
Boards of Trustees of the Ohio Laborers Benefits v. Atlas General Construction LLC
S.D. OhioMar 14, 2022Ohio
Plaintiff Win$23,030.87 awarded
Cordova
D. Kan.Mar 14, 2022Kansas
Dismissed
Torres
M.D. Fla.Mar 10, 2022Florida
Remanded
Almond
E.D. Mich.Mar 10, 2022Michigan
Dismissed
Kovac
N.D. Tex.Mar 10, 2022Texas
Defendant Win
OKEREKE
D. Mass.Mar 9, 2022Massachusetts
Plaintiff Win
Extraction Oil & Gas, Inc. v. City and County of Broomfield, The
D. Colo.Mar 9, 2022Colorado
Defendant Win
Percy
S.D.N.Y.Mar 9, 2022New York
Defendant Win
Armstead
S.D.N.Y.Mar 9, 2022New York
Remanded
Arnold Vasquez v. McLane Foodservice, Inc.
C.D. Cal.Mar 8, 2022California
Mixed Result
Anderson
D. Kan.Mar 8, 2022Kansas
Dismissed
Ellerman, Bradley v. Whitley, John
W.D. Wis.Mar 7, 2022North Carolina
Plaintiff Win$17,849.25 awarded
Grantham
S.D. Ga.Mar 7, 2022Georgia
Defendant Win
Foster
S.D.N.Y.Mar 4, 2022New York
Mixed Result
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. St. Joseph's/Candler Health System, Inc.
S.D. Ga.Mar 3, 2022Georgia
Mixed Result
Bowman
E.D. Cal.Mar 3, 2022California
Mixed Result

Showing 2,9012,950 of 8,273 rulings · Page 59 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.