Search 142,000+ federal and state court decisions on employment law — updated daily from public court records.
142,000+
Total Rulings
1964
Earliest Filing
2026
Most Recent
Daily
Update Frequency
This database contains 142,000+ federal and state court rulings related to employment law, spanning from 1964 to present. Every ruling includes the case name, filing date, court, docket number, and — where available — the outcome, damages awarded, employer involved, and specific claims raised.
You can search by keyword, filter by federal statute (Title VII, ADA, FMLA, FLSA, and more), narrow by date range, and click into any ruling for the full details and related cases. Each ruling links to the original source on CourtListener for verification.
Domestic violence protective order subject-matter jurisdiction civil summons competent evidence of domestic violence harassment substantial emotional distress
The plaintiff sought damages from the defendant for the alleged wrongful termination of his employment in violation of statute (§ 31-51q). The plaintiff, who was employed as a truck driver by the defendant, alleged that his employment was terminated after raising safety complaints to the defendant. After a jury trial, the court rendered judgment for the plaintiff in accordance with the jury's verdict. The plaintiff thereafter filed a motion for attorney's fees, seeking an amount calculated pursuant to the lodestar method, in which the number of hours expended by counsel on the litigation and counsel's hourly rate are used to determine reasonable attorney's fees. The court, however, awarded attorney's fees on a one-third contingency basis. The court concluded that the plaintiff's fee agreement with his counsel was ambiguous because the agreement stated both that the law firm's employment was on a contingency fee basis and that time would be kept on an hourly basis, and, in the event a recovery is made and attorney's fees are awarded, the law firm shall receive whichever amount was greater. The plaintiff appealed and the defendant filed a cross appeal, claiming that the court erred by awarding attorney's fees to the plaintiff, by failing to set aside the jury's award of damages, by rendering judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and by providing an incorrect charge to the jury. Held: 1. The trial court erred by failing to apply the lodestar method in calculating the amount of attorney's fees awarded to the plaintiff: in resolving the alleged ambiguity in the fee agreement, the court, with no further explanation, awarded attorney's fees in the amount of one third of the damages that the plaintiff received; the fee agreement contemplated both the one-third contingency and lodestar methods of calculating attorney's fees but clearly stated that the law firm shall receive as its fee whichever was the greater of the two, and, because the court failed to apply the provision of
Page 569 of 980 · 48,993 rulings
--- rulings
This database indexes 142,000+ employment law court rulings from federal district courts, circuit courts of appeals, and state courts across the United States. Cases cover the full spectrum of employment law claims, including Title VII discrimination, ADA accommodation disputes, FMLA retaliation, FLSA wage and hour violations, wrongful termination, whistleblower protections, and more.
All rulings are sourced from CourtListener, a project of the Free Law Project (501(c)(3) nonprofit). We ingest new rulings daily through automated feeds, then classify each ruling by employment law statute, claim type, outcome, and employer using a combination of keyword matching and AI-assisted extraction.
Use the search and filters above to find rulings relevant to your situation. You can search by case name, employer, or keyword, then filter by statute and date range. Click any ruling to see the full details, including outcome, damages, related laws, and similar cases. If you find a ruling involving your employer, visit their employer profile to see their full complaint history.
This information is provided for educational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Court rulings are public records. Consult a licensed attorney for advice specific to your situation.