Kenneth H. Yoon

This year has been busy for Yoon. So far, he's won a $6 million verdict against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and a published appellate decision that clarifies the Federal Arbitration Act's scope.

Yoon represented a class of Wal-Mart employees who claimed the company wasn't complying with its meal break obligations. Employees were required to complete a mandatory security check if they left the premises for their 30-minute meal period, which discouraged or impeded their break, he argued.

"The fact that somebody stayed or left or the fact they clocked off wasn't really the focus," Yoon said. "The point was the break provided wasn't compliant because there was an element of impeding or discouraging people from leaving."

In April, a jury unanimously agreed, awarding $6 million in compensation for every meal that had been infringed upon for 5,000 employees. Hamilton v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 17-CV01415 (C.D. Cal., April 12, 2019).

The case was among the first to be argued on the narrow "impede or discourage" provision of Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, in which the state Supreme Court ruled the employer must relieve its employees of all duty during meal breaks. Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal. 4th 1004 (2012).

"In that sense, it provides a warning to a lot of employers who probably weren't thinking about it," Yoon said of the verdict.

In a different case decided in March, Yoon represented a truck driver who worked for a beer distributor. The employee sued over alleged wage and hour violations, but the company petitioned to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, citing an agreement the driver had signed upon his hiring.

Yoon argued the driver was exempt from the federal law under an exemption for transportation workers in interstate commerce. The trial court agreed, and the 5th District Court of Appeal affirmed. Nieto v. Fresno Beverage Co., Inc., 33 Cal. App. 5th 274 (2019).

-- Erin Lee