This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Employment Law
Wage and Hour
Meal and Rest Period

Chelsea Hamilton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and Alyssa Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Wal-Mart Associates Inc., and Does 1 through 50, inclusive

Published: Jun. 14, 2019 | Result Date: Apr. 12, 2019 | Filing Date: Jun. 13, 2017 |

Case number: 5:17-cv-01415 AB (KKx) Verdict –  $6,001,599

Judge

Andre Birotte Jr.

Court

CD CA


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Kenneth H. Yoon
(Yoon Law APC)

Stephanie E. Yasuda
(Yoon Law APC)

Brian G. Lee
(Yoon Law APC)

G. Samuel Cleaver
(Law Offices of G. Samuel Cleaver)

Brian J. Mankin
(Lauby, Mankin & Lauby LLP)

Peter J. Carlson
(Lauby, Mankin & Lauby LLP)


Defendant

Mark D. Kemple
(Greenberg Traurig LLP)

Matthew R. Gershman
(Greenberg Traurig LLP)


Facts

Chelsea Hamilton filed a class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. in relation to requiring its employees to go through a security checkpoint when exiting its Chino Fulfillment Center.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that Walmart did not provide adequate meal breaks when it required employees to go through an off-the-clock security check every time they wanted to exit the building, effectively impeding or discouraging employees from leaving the facility for meal breaks. Plaintiffs claimed the sole purpose of the security check process was theft prevention rather than the safety of employees. The security check process required employees leaving the building to empty their pockets, proffer personal items for inspection, walk through a metal detector, and show their cell phone home screen to assert protection to verify the phone was not Walmart property.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied the contentions.

Result

The jury found in favor of plaintiffs and awarded them $6,001,599.

Poll

8-0

Length

six days


#131852

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390