Report: Central District Leads Nation in Federal Employment Lawsuits

Nationwide, employment litigation in federal courts has rebounded sharply since pandemic disruptions temporarily slowed case filings. The resurgence is being driven largely by discrimination and disability-related claims, which now make up a growing share of the federal docket

The Central District of California has become the nation’s busiest venue for federal employment litigation, which may reflect the state’s expanding worker protections and the continuing rebound of workplace lawsuits following pandemic-era slowdowns, according to a new report from Lex Machina.

The analytics company’s 2026 Employment Litigation Report, which examined federal filings from 2023 through 2025, found that the Central District handled more employment cases than any other federal district in the nation during the period. The court saw 1,258 cases filed in 2023, 1,303 in 2024 and 1,646 in 2025, totaling 4,207 cases and about 5.6% of all federal employment lawsuits nationwide.

That put the Los Angeles-based federal court ahead of the Southern District of New York and the Northern District of Illinois, both historically major employment-litigation venues.

Adam Mills Masarek, a legal marketing manager at Lex Machina, said the Central District’s dominance represents a notable shift from a decade ago.

“That wasn’t the case 10 years ago,” Masarek said. But the Central District “has climbed the charts and has been the leading venue for the last three years, with especially large increases from 2024 to 2025.”

Although not reflected in this report, he said Lex Machina had observed similar trends in employment litigation in the major superior courts in California, too.

Carolyn G. Burnette, Sacramento office managing principal at Jackson Lewis PC, said the numbers reflect that Southern California has been a hotbed of plaintiff litigation for some time.
“We see volumes and volumes and volumes of these cases coming out of this area,” she said, suggesting that it is the result of a densely populated region and a growing plaintiffs’ bar.

Changes in procedures post-pandemic have eased barriers to entry for lawyers, Burnette said. No longer are lawyers expected to have an office or staff, and attending court or arbitration sessions can be done remotely.

“We have seen a lot of lawyers entering the industry on the plaintiffs’ side post-COVID,” she said. “All you need is a laptop, honestly.”

Many employment lawsuits originate in state court but later move into federal court through diversity jurisdiction, particularly when the defendant is an out-of-state company, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. At the same time, California continues to enact new employee-protection statutes, which the researchers said may be contributing to the overall increase in employment litigation involving California employers.

Nationwide, employment litigation in federal courts has rebounded sharply since pandemic disruptions temporarily slowed case filings. According to the report, 26,635 employment lawsuits were filed in 2025, the highest number in at least a decade. Filings had fallen during the pandemic as courts closed and workplace interactions declined, reaching a low point in 2022. But since 2023, filings have increased every year.

The resurgence is being driven largely by discrimination and disability-related claims, which now make up a growing share of the federal docket. Discrimination filings alone topped 20,000 cases in 2025, the first time they have exceeded that level since at least 2009.

Recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have clarified or expanded the scope of federal employment protections, potentially encouraging additional litigation.

In Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services (2025), the court ruled that majority-group employees bringing Title VII claims do not need to show additional “background circumstances” to support discrimination claims. In Muldrow v. City of St. Louis (2024), the court held that an unwanted job transfer can support a Title VII claim if it causes some harm, rather than requiring significant harm. Earlier decisions also expanded protections: Bostock v. Clayton County (2020) confirmed that Title VII prohibits discrimination against gay and transgender employees, and Babb v. Wilkie (2020) held that age-discrimination plaintiffs could recover if age played any role in an employment decision, even if it was not the but-for cause.

The most dramatic increase has come in lawsuits alleging that employers failed to provide reasonable accommodations for workers with disabilities. Those cases nearly doubled in just a few years, rising from roughly 2,900 to 3,500 annually before 2022 to 6,785 filings in 2025, the highest on record.

Lex Machina researchers attribute the spike to several factors, including long-term health conditions following COVID-19, increasing attention to mental health issues and disputes over workplace arrangements such as remote work.

“New workplace realities have created more situations where employees request accommodations and employers may deny them,” Masarek said.

Burnette chalked up some of the rise in cases to the vicissitudes of the business.

“When I first entered this business, there were a lot of race cases, for example,” she said. “At some point the industry pivoted to disability.”

Race-related cases and similar cases like sexual harassment tend to be “he said/she said types of cases,” Burnette said. “Those cases are very hard to prove – and the plaintiff has the burden of proof.”

“With disability cases, the legal standard is reasonable. The employer has to provide reasonable accommodation. The guidance is not overly specific. The court and the parties have to figure it out. That type of legal structure helps more with provability.”