1,791 employment law court rulings from public federal records (1977–2026)
184 of 1639 adjudicated opinions ended in a plaintiff win.
Workplace harassment involves unwelcome conduct based on a protected characteristic that creates a hostile or intimidating work environment. To be actionable, harassment must be sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment. Employers may be liable for harassment by supervisors, coworkers, or even non-employees in certain circumstances.
Employers most frequently appearing in harassment rulings.
gender discrimination, hostile work environment, negligent retention/supervision, motion to dismiss, Civ.R. 12(B)(6), statute of limitations, directed verdict, similarly situated employee, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, JNOV, Civ.R. 50(B), Evid.R. 702, attorney fees, prejudgment interest
Appellant Brooke Simpson challenges the district court's grant of a harassment restraining order (HRO) in favor of respondent Fiorella Y Andrade Carpio, arguing that "Fiorella Y Andrade Carpio" appears on the HRO petition that respondent filed with the district court. We use the caption from…
Appellant argues on appeal that the district court: (1) erred in finding her in civil contempt and in awarding respondent attorney fees because the underlying harassment restraining order expired prior to the contempt ruling; and (2) misapplied Minn. Stat. § 588.10 (2022) when it fined appellant…
Appellant challenges the summary-judgment dismissal of her claims under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), her claims under the Minnesota whistleblower act (MWA), and her claims for negligent hiring, supervision, and retention. She also challenges the district court's denial of her motions to…
Showing 301–350 of 1,791 rulings · Page 7 of 36
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.