Stokes Wagner Law Firm
Stokes Wagner

Ever wonder if you can recover litigation costs in employment cases? On August 15, 2017, in Sviridov v. City of San Diego, the court made it clearer for employers.

Two years ago, in Williams v. Chino Valley Independent Fire Dist., the Supreme Court explained that prevailing employers in employment cases can generally only recover costs if the employee’s action was objectively without foundation – an extraordinarily high standard. However, Williams was not asked to consider and did not answer the question of whether costs may properly be awarded in a FEHA action pursuant to a Section 998 offer. That issue was before the court in Sviridov.

Read More...


For the first time ever, the California Labor Commissioner fined a general contractor nearly $250,000 for wage and hour violations committed by its subcontractor, who had been hired for a hotel construction project in Southern California. This decision is significant for businesses that use subcontractors.

Read More...


As we wrote in our June update, the Obama administration raised the minimum salary requirement for major “white collar” exemptions from $455/week to $913/week. In July 2017, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) filed its long-awaited reply brief with the 5th Circuit regarding the new minimum requirements. The DOL did not seek to reinstate the Obama’s minimum salary level. The DOL did, however, ask the Court to find that the DOL has authority to set a salary test.

Read More...


In Stragapede v. City of Evanston, Illinois, the Seventh Circuit upheld the nearly $580,000 jury verdict in favor of the former City employee. Stragapede, a 14-year veteran of the City’s Department of Water Services, suffered a traumatic brain injury at home in 2009.

Read More...


In a recent newsletter, we reported that the United States Supreme Court would decide the hotly contested issue of whether class waivers are valid in arbitration agreements sometime this year.

The Court recently announced that it would hear oral argument on the issue on October 2, 2017. Stokes Wagner will keep you informed as things progress with this hot issue.

For more legal updates, check out our update for September 2017!

Read More...


On July 17, 2017, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) released a revised Form I-9.

While the revised form does not change storage and retention rules, it does include subtle changes to the form’s instructions. For instance, the instructions to Section 1 have been revised to remove “the end of” from the phrase “the first day of employment.” Also, the form introduces a new name for the Department of Justice’s Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices: The Immigrant and Employee Rights Section.

Read More...


The Department of Labor (DOL) has announced an intent to rescind the notorious 2011 Federal Tip-Pooling Rule, which currently prevents service-industry employers from allowing front-of-house servers to share tips with back-of-house employees (i.e., cooks and dishwashers). Under the 2011 regulation, tip-pools must only include front of house staff. Given the prevalence of tip-pooling in the service industry, the 2011 rule has been the subject of numerous legal challenges, including two petitions that are currently pending before the United States Supreme Court.

Read More...


We are pleased to present the Legal Update for our latest Quarter! Download the PDF version by clicking here.

Read More...


The City of New York enacted several bills affecting fast-food employers, effective November 26, 2017.

Read More...


Employers in Massachusetts may not terminate employees who use medical marijuana in accordance with a prescription according to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s recent ruling in Barbuto v. Advantage Sales and Marketing, LLC. Barbuto, a former Advantage employee, disclosed her medical marijuana usage at the time of her hire. Ms. Barbuto worked for only one day before she was terminated for failing the company’s mandatory drug test. The company’s drug policies followed the federal drug schedule, not local Massachusetts law. The court found for Ms. Barbuto by stating that, in terminating her employment, the company illegally discriminated against her.

Read More...