International Rescue Committee Employee Claims Company Didn’t Provide Breaks
/
In recent news, an International Rescue Committee employee claims the company failed to provide employees with meal breaks and rest periods, in compliance with labor laws.
Case: Brandon Thomas Fitzgerald v. International Rescue Committee Inc.
Court: San Diego County Superior Court of the State of California
Case No.: 25CU058378C
Get to Know the Plaintiff: Fitzgerald v. International Rescue Committee
The plaintiff in the case, Fitzgerald, worked for the International Rescue Committee from December 2024 through March 2025. Fitzgerald filed a class action complaint against International Rescue Committee Inc. for allegedly failing to provide employees with timely, off-duty meal and rest periods. According to the plaintiff, the company violated multiple labor laws, stemming from practices that prevented employees from taking off-duty meal breaks and rest periods.
Who is the Defendant in the Case?
The defendant in the case, International Rescue Committee, owns and operates humanitarian aid and refugee settlement in California.
The Plaintiffs Allege the Defendants Violated Multiple Labor Laws
According to the lawsuit, the defendant allegedly violated multiple California Labor Code sections (namely §§ 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802). The allegations plaintiffs listed in the complaint included: failing to pay minimum wage; failing to pay overtime wages; failing to provide meal breaks and rest periods; failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements; failing to pay wages when due; and failing to reimburse employees for required expenses.
The Main Questions in the Case: Fitzgerald v. International Rescue Committee
California’s Wage Orders broadly define “hours worked.” The definition includes not only time on the posted schedule but also time when an employee is under the employer’s control or is permitted to work. The key issue here is whether International Rescue Committee Inc. required or permitted employees to work off the clock, including alleged work before and after shifts and during what were supposed to be off-duty meal periods, without pay. If that happened, the court would be looking at whether failing to track and compensate that time caused employees to receive less than the required minimum wage for all hours worked in the affected pay periods, regardless of whether they were paid by the hour, by piece, by commission, or by another method. As of January 2026, the case was pending in the San Diego County Superior Court of the State of California.
FAQ: Fitzgerald v. International Rescue Committee
Q: What counts as “hours worked” under California law?
A: Under California law, "hours worked" is defined broadly as all time during which an employee is subject to the control of an employer, including all the time the employee is "suffered or permitted to work, whether or not required to do so."
Q: When is an employer required to provide a compliant, off-duty meal period in California?
A: In California, employers must provide a compliant, unpaid, off-duty meal period of at least 30 minutes for any shift lasting more than five hours. This break must begin no later than the end of the employee's fifth hour of work. A second 30-minute break is required if the shift exceeds 10 hours.
Q: What are California's rest period requirements, and what happens if an employee can’t take an uninterrupted rest break?
A: In California, non-exempt employees must be provided with a paid, 10-minute uninterrupted rest break for every 4 hours worked (or major fraction thereof). Breaks should be in the middle of a work shift. If a break is missed, interrupted, or not provided, employers must pay one hour of “premium pay” (as specified by labor law).
Q: If an employee works during a meal break or while they are off-the-clock, can that time also trigger overtime obligations?
A: Yes, any time an employee spends working while “off-the-clock” or on an unpaid meal break counts as hours worked according to FLSA (the Fair Labor Standards Act), and can lead to overtime obligations of the total weekly hours exceeding 40.
Q: What information must appear on an itemized wage statement, and what are the penalties for inaccurate wage statements?
A: California’s Labor Code Section 226(a) requires employers to provide accurate, itemized wage statements including 9 specific mandatory details. Failing to comply with the requirements can result in penalties of $50 for the first violation, $100 per employee for each subsequent violation (up to a maximum of $4,000), plus potential lawsuits with associated attorney fees and costs.
Q: What remedies are typically sought in California wage-and-hour class actions involving missed breaks, unpaid wages, and unreimbursed expenses?
A: In most California wage and hour class actions, plaintiffs seek lost income for affected employees, enforcement of Labor Code compliance requirements, and financial penalties for systemic labor law violations.
If you believe your employer’s timekeeping policies caused you to miss overtime pay, shorted you on wages earned during overnight shifts, or resulted in inaccurate wage statements or final pay issues, the employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help. Contact one of our offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago today to learn how to hold your employer accountable.
