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.
Section 105(a) of title 3, U.S. Code, which authorizes the President to appoint employees in the White House Office "without regard to any other provision of law regulating the employment or compen-sation of persons in the Government service," exempts positions in the White House Office from the prohibition on nepotism in 5 U.S.C. § 3110.
This case arises out of the termination of a tenured teacher. After a three-day hearing, the school board concluded that there was ample evidence of the teacher's unsatisfactory job performance, so it terminated her employment. In the trial court review of the school board's decision, the teacher argued that she should be reinstated with back pay because her school board hearing occurred well beyond the thirty-day period set forth in the Teachers' Tenure Act. The trial court affirmed the termination and the teacher appealed. The Court of Appeals declined to reinstate the teacher based on the untimeliness of the school board hearing but it awarded her partial back pay. On appeal, we first clarify the standard of judicial review for the termination of a tenured teacher under the Tenure Act. Second, we reverse the Court of Appeals' award of partial back pay to the teacher because the relief ordered is without basis in the Tenure Act. Finally, because the teacher failed to raise to the school board any objection as to the timeliness of her hearing, we hold that the issue is not properly before this Court. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's decision to uphold the termination of the teacher's employment.
Civil immunity R.C. 2743.02(F) R.C. 9.86 state employee. The magistrate determined that Dr. Janice M. Duke, M.D. was a state employee and engaged in her duties under her Wright State University Boonshoft School of Medicine contract as a state employee when she rendered medical care to two plaintiffs from December 4, 2004 to June 30, 2005. The magistrate recommended that Dr. Duke was entitled to immunity pursuant to R.C. 9.86 and 2743.02(F), and the courts of common pleas do not have jurisdiction over any civil actions that may be filed against her based upon the allegations in this case.
Page 775 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.