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.
<bold>Workers' Compensation — jurisdiction — occupational disease — time for</bold> <bold>filing complaint</bold> <block_quote> The Industrial Commission properly exercised jurisdiction in a workers' compensation case when it concluded that plaintiff employee timely filed his claim for an occupational disease under N.C.G.S. § <cross_reference>97-58</cross_reference> even though plaintiff was disabled as of 20 September 1992 but was not advised by a competent medical authority that his disease was a result of his occupation until April 1994, three months after plaintiff filed his claim, because: (1) N.C.G.S. § <cross_reference>97-58</cross_reference> provides that the two-year period within which claims for benefits for an occupational disease must be filed begins running when an employee has suffered from an occupational disease which renders the employee incapable of earning, at any job, the wages the employee was receiving at the time of the incapacity, and the employee is informed by competent medical authority of the nature and work-related cause of the disease; and (2) the statutory period was not triggered since no testimony was offered that any of plaintiff's doctors informed plaintiff that his job was causing his disease until after plaintiff filed his claim with the Commission.</block_quote>
Public Utilities Commission—Allegations that rates charged outside the geographical area of a "competitive pilot program" were discriminatory—R.C. 4905.31, 4905.33, and 4905.35 do not prohibit all discrimination—Discounts are permitted based on competition—Commission's dismissal of complaint affirmed.
Mandamus to compel State Employment Relations Board to vacate its dismissal of relators' unfair labor practice charges and to hold a hearing on the charges—Writ denied, when.
Ohio Civil Rights Commission—Common pleas court has jurisdiction to modify order of commission—Proper measure of damages in employment discrimination case—Where amount of backpay that would have been received by victim of employment discrimination is unclear, ambiguities are resolved against discriminating employer—Unemployment compensation benefits are not deducted from a back pay award made pursuant to R.C. 4112.05(G).
Page 88 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.