Skip to main content
Claim Type

Wrongful Termination Cases

6,866 employment law court rulings from public federal records (18632026)

6,866
Total Rulings
23%
Plaintiff Win Rate
$1,340,684
Avg Damages (488 cases)
S.D.N.Y.
Top Court

About Wrongful Termination Claims

Wrongful termination claims arise when an employee is fired in violation of federal or state law, public policy, or an employment contract. While most employment is at-will, employers cannot terminate employees for illegal reasons such as discrimination, retaliation, or exercising legal rights. These cases examine whether the stated reason for termination was pretextual.

Case Outcomes

Defendant Win
3045 (44%)
Plaintiff Win
1585 (23%)
Mixed Result
1115 (16%)
Remanded
569 (8%)
Dismissed
460 (7%)
Settlement
91 (1%)
Other
1 (0%)

Top Employers in Wrongful Termination Cases

Employers most frequently appearing in wrongful termination rulings.

Court Rulings (6,866)

Maneman
W.D. Wash.Sep 23, 2025Washington
Mixed Result
Lopez Lopez v. Rhodes Farming, LLC
E.D.N.C.Sep 23, 2025North Carolina
Defendant Win
Budlove
Ill. App. Ct.Sep 23, 2025
Defendant Win
Muzzarelli
C.D. Ill.Sep 23, 2025Illinois
Mixed Result
Eccarius
N.D. Cal.Sep 23, 2025California
Dismissed
Whitsell
W.D. Ky.Sep 23, 2025Kentucky
Dismissed
McKay
D.S.C.Sep 22, 2025Texas
Dismissed
Collins
S.D.N.Y.Sep 22, 2025New York
Remanded
Souch
Cal. Ct. App.Sep 22, 2025
Defendant Win
Johnny Cousain v. Smitty&39;s Supply, Inc. and National Union Fire Insurance Company
La. Ct. App.Sep 19, 2025
Mixed Result$22,437.4 awarded
S.D.N.Y.Sep 19, 2025New York
Mixed Result
Martin
N.D. Ala.Sep 19, 2025Alabama
Dismissed
Trump
9th CircuitSep 19, 2025
Mixed Result
Lata
E.D.N.Y.Sep 18, 2025Washington
Defendant Win
Tatarunas
Ohio Ct. App.Sep 18, 2025

Summary judgment; Civ.R. 56(C); R.C. 4112.02; reverse race discrimination; reverse sex discrimination; similarly situated employees; legitimate nondiscriminatory reason; intentional infliction of emotional distress; wrongful termination in violation of public policy; Ohio Const., art. I, § 16; breach of contract. The plaintiff-appellant, a white male, was employed by the defendant-appellee for approximately eight years. While employed, appellant was disciplined multiple times during his tenure. Appellant sued appellee, raising a number of claims. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of appellee with respect to appellant's claims concerning reverse race discrimination, reverse sex discrimination, intentional infliction of emotional distress, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and breach of contract. Appellant failed to meet his burden in showing a prima facie case of race discrimination. Appellant did, however, present a prima facie case of sex discrimination. But even though appellant presented a prima facie case of reverse sex discrimination, appellee present a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for appellant's termination. Appellant failed to present evidence demonstrating that appellee's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason was pretextual. Appellee had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory and legally justifiable reason to terminate appellant, and therefore appellant failed to demonstrate that appellee's termination of his employment was "extreme and outrageous." Appellant also failed to present any evidence that he suffered "severe and debilitating injury" as a result of his termination. He failed to present any expert opinion or lay person testimony concerning any significant changes in his emotional or habitual make-up. The only evidence he presented with respect to his "injury" is only his own claims. As such, appellant failed to support his prima facie case for intentional infliction of emotional distress. With respect to appellant'

Mixed Result
Jensen
D. Ariz.Sep 18, 2025Arizona
Dismissed
Escobedo
E.D. Cal.Sep 18, 2025Washington
Plaintiff Win$28,178.5 awarded
Thompson
W.D. Wash.Sep 16, 2025Washington
Defendant Win
Mulla
S.D. W. Va.Sep 16, 2025West Virginia
Defendant Win
Sellers
M.D. Pa.Sep 15, 2025Pennsylvania
Defendant Win
Doamekpor
S.D. OhioSep 15, 2025Ohio
Dismissed
Amaya
D. Ariz.Sep 12, 2025Arizona
Remanded
BEY
W.D. Pa.Sep 12, 2025Pennsylvania
Defendant Win
Galvez
D. Nev.Sep 12, 2025Nevada
Defendant Win
Perez
D. Colo.Sep 12, 2025Colorado
Dismissed
Mulla
S.D. W. Va.Sep 11, 2025West Virginia
Mixed Result
Head
N.D. Cal.Sep 10, 2025Texas
Dismissed
Butler v. Specialized Loan Servicing LLC
D. Colo.Sep 10, 2025Colorado
Mixed Result
Edwards
S.D. Cal.Sep 10, 2025Tennessee
Mixed Result
Samuelson
D.S.D.Sep 9, 2025South Dakota
Defendant Win
SPECHT
D.N.J.Sep 8, 2025Pennsylvania
Defendant Win
Wells
E.D. Tenn.Sep 8, 2025Tennessee
Defendant Win
Hobson
E.D. Mo.Sep 8, 2025Pennsylvania
Defendant Win
Comber
D. UtahSep 5, 2025Utah
Mixed Result
Riley
S.D.N.Y.Sep 4, 2025New York
Plaintiff Win
Pratt
D.S.C.Sep 4, 2025South Carolina
Mixed Result
Crouch
Unknown CourtSep 3, 2025

N.C. Wage and Hour Act; Code of Federal Regulations; Tipped working hours and minimum wage working hours; Reduced Wages; Retaliatory Discrimination; Excluded Testimony; Hearsay; Directed Verdict

Mixed Result
FIDAN
D.N.J.Sep 3, 2025New Jersey
Dismissed
Duwe
S.D. OhioSep 3, 2025Ohio
Defendant Win
Woods
D. Mass.Sep 3, 2025Massachusetts
Mixed Result
Puranik
S.D.N.Y.Sep 2, 2025New York
Mixed Result
Hammersley
E.D. Wis.Sep 2, 2025Wisconsin
Defendant Win
Google LLC v. LATAM Airlines Group S.A. Inc.
N.D. Cal.Aug 29, 2025California
Remanded
O'Connor
D. Neb.Aug 29, 2025Nebraska
Mixed Result
Maneman
W.D. Wash.Aug 29, 2025Washington
Defendant Win
A.
N.D. Ga.Aug 27, 2025Georgia
Dismissed
Mendez
S.D.N.Y.Aug 27, 2025New York
Defendant Win
Harrison
D.S.C.Aug 26, 2025South Carolina
Mixed Result
Miriam Maldonado v. Megdal Downey LLC
C.D. Cal.Aug 20, 2025California
Mixed Result
Carpenter
E.D. Mo.Aug 19, 2025Missouri
Defendant Win

Showing 251300 of 6,866 rulings · Page 6 of 138

Think you may have a wrongful termination 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.