No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Court denied defendant Costco's motion for a preliminary fact statement to the jury, ruling that a stipulation requires mutual assent from both parties and cannot be ordered by the court.
Hirlston v. Costco Wholesale Corporation
What Happened
An employee with a disability filed a lawsuit against Costco Wholesale Corporation. During the court proceedings, Costco asked the judge to order that both sides agree to certain facts before the case went to a jury trial.
What the Court Decided
The judge rejected Costco's request. The court ruled that when both sides agree to facts in a case (called a "stipulation"), both parties must voluntarily consent to it. A judge cannot force the parties to agree—it must be a mutual decision made by both the employee and the employer.
Why This Matters for Workers
This ruling protects employees by ensuring they maintain control over what facts they accept in their case. Workers cannot be forced into agreements that might weaken their legal position. They have the right to contest disputed facts in front of a jury rather than having a judge impose an agreement. This helps balance the power between individual workers and large employers like Costco.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Other orders and opinions in HIRLSTON from the same court.
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.