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.

Mega International Class Action: Employees Claim California Company Failed to Provide Breaks

In a recent California class action lawsuit, an employee alleged that Mega International failed to provide employees with appropriate meal breaks and rest periods.

Case: Deana Sinforosa Garcia Hernandez v. Mega International, LLC, MCO Services LLC

Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court of the State of California

Case No.: 25STCV30670

Get to Know the Plaintiff: Garcia Hernandez v. Mega International, MCO Services LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Deana Sinforosa Garcia Hernandez, was jointly employed by Mega International and MCO Services from May 2024 through September 2025. Garcia Hernandez was employed as an hourly, non-exempt employee, which means she is entitled to legally required meal breaks and rest periods, as well as minimum wage and overtime pay protections under labor laws. In the California class action, Garcia Hernandez claims the company failed to provide meal periods and rest breaks mandated by federal and state labor laws.

Who is the Defendant in the Case?

According to court documents, the defendants in the case were joint employers of the plaintiff, Garcia Hernandez, who worked for the company for a year and 4 months. Their business services included offering California corporate clients with business support and operational oversight.

The Plaintiffs Allege the Defendants Violated Multiple Labor Laws

The plaintiff alleged that Mega International/MCO Services violated labor laws governing meal breaks, rest periods, premium pay for missed breaks, etc.

The Main Question in the Case: Did the Company Provide Lawful Meal and Rest Periods?

The California class action lawsuit claims that the company failed to provide its employees with timely off-duty meal breaks and rest periods as required by labor law. As such, the court needed to consider whether the company complied with the applicable requirements of the California Labor Code and the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Orders. Specifically, the court must decide whether workers were relieved of duties and free of employer control during breaks and meal periods. The plaintiffs claim the company did not relieve employees of all their work duties during breaks due to workplace demands, standard policies, and business practices. In direct correlation to compliant breaks, the court must also consider whether the company complied with Labor Code section 226.7 by offering the proper premium pay to employees when compliant breaks were not provided. To determine compliance, the court is likely to consider time records, written policies, witness testimony, and workplace practices to pinpoint isolated incidents or a broader pattern of violations affecting multiple employees.

FAQ: Garcia Hernandez v. Mega International

Q: When are California employees legally entitled to a meal break?

A: California employees are entitled to a meal break (unpaid, off-duty, and at least 30 minutes) when they work over five hours (meal with the meal break starting no later than the end of the fifth hour). If the employee works a shift longer than 10 hours, they are entitled to a second 30-minute minimum meal break (off duty and unpaid).

Q: How many rest periods are California employers required to provide their employees?

A: California employers are legally required to provide all non-exempt employees with one paid 10-minute rest period (uninterrupted) for every four hours they work. Working a 3.5- to 6-hour shift entitles employees to one 10-minute break; working 6 to 10 hours entitles them to two 10-minute breaks; and working 10 to 14 hours entitles them to three 10-minute breaks.

Q: When discussing meal breaks and rest periods, what is the legal definition of “off duty?”

A: When discussing labor law and meal breaks/rest periods, “off duty” means an employee is relieved of all their work duties and job-related tasks, as well as control by the employer for the full break.

Q: What is the “premium pay” provided for missed rest periods at work in California?

A: In California, employers are required to provide compliant rest periods (10 minutes for each 4-hour work shift), and when they fail to comply with this requirement, employees are entitled to one additional hour of pay (referred to as “premium pay”) at their regular rate of compensation. Premium pay is required for each workday a violation occurs, regardless of the number of missed breaks.

Q: What sort of evidence can employees offer the California court to show meal break/rest period violations?

A: California employees attempting to present effective evidence of meal break/rest period violations to the court can present unrounded timecard records, personal logs of hours and breaks, testimony from co-workers, emails/texts showing work occurring during breaks, etc.

Q: Do many California employers violate labor laws governing meal breaks and rest periods?

A: Yes, meal and rest break violations are some of the most common, frequent, and costly labor law violations in California workplaces, frequently triggering class-action lawsuits and PAGA claims.

If you believe you were misclassified as exempt, worked more than 40 hours without overtime pay, or were denied legally required meal and rest breaks, 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.

Headway Faces a Class Action Alleging Overtime Pay Violations

Headway, a platform that matches patients with high-quality mental healthcare professionals to meet their needs, is accused of violating labor laws in a California class-action lawsuit.

Case: Tessa Brower-Walsh v. Therapy Match, Inc. dba Headway

Court: San Diego County Superior Court of the State of California

Case No.: 25CU053855C

Get to Know the Plaintiff: Tessa Brower-Walsh v. Therapy Match, Inc. dba Headway.

The plaintiff in the case, Tessa Brower-Walsh, filed a class action complaint alleging that the defendant failed to pay its employees for all hours worked accurately. Headway employed the plaintiff from August 2024 to May 2025.

Who is the Defendant in the Case?

The defendant in the case is Therapymatch, Inc.; however, hereinafter we’ll refer to them as Headway. Headway is a Delaware-based company doing significant business in California, including San Diego County. The company owns and operates a platform that connects patients with mental health care professionals.

The Plaintiffs Allege the Defendants Violated Multiple Labor Laws

As is often the case with California employment law claims, the plaintiffs allege that their employer violated multiple labor laws. The following labor law violation allegations were included in the complaint:

• Failure to pay minimum wage

• Failure to pay accurate overtime wages

• Failure to provide employees with required meal breaks and rest periods

• Failure to provide employees with accurate itemized wage statements

• Failure to pay wages promptly

• Failure to reimburse workers for required business expenses

The Main Question of the Case: Tessa Brower-Walsh v. Therapy Match, Inc., dba Headway

In Tessa Brower-Walsh v. Therapy Match, Inc., dba Headway, the main legal question was whether or not Headway’s wage statements complied with labor law. According to the plaintiff, Headway failed to provide all the required information on their wage statements (violating California Labor Code Section 226). Additionally, the court needs to consider the company’s history of wage payments, overtime calculations, and compensation practices to determine whether it violated labor laws governing minimum wage rates, overtime pay, and exempt classification.

FAQ: Tessa Brower-Walsh v. Therapy Match, Inc. dba Headway

Q: Has the Court decided on the Headway Overtime Class Action?

A: As of October 2025, the case, Tessa Brower-Walsh v. Therapy Match, Inc. dba Headway, was still pending in San Diego County Superior Court.

Q: Are California employers required to provide their employees with specific pay and wage information?

A: Yes, labor law is very specific about what data is required on an “accurate itemized wage statement.”

Q: What information is required on wage statements to comply with California Labor Code Section 226?

A: California employers must include the following information on wage statements to comply with labor laws: gross wages earned, total hours worked, the number of piece-rate units earned and the applicable piece-rates, any deductions, net wages earned, the dates of the pay period, employee name, last four digits of the employee’s social security number (or employee id number), name and address of the employer, hourly rates that apply to the pay period, and number of hours worked at each specified hourly rate.

Q: What qualifies as an exempt employee in California?

A: ​​To qualify as an exempt employee, California workers must pass a two-part test. First, the duties test. They must be “primarily” engaged in the duties that meet the test of the exemption. Second, the salary test. They must earn a monthly salary of at least twice California’s minimum wage for full-time employees (Labor Code § 515).

If you believe you were misclassified as exempt and denied overtime pay, or you were not paid for all hours worked, the employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can evaluate your wage-and-hour claims and explain your options. Contact the firm’s offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago to discuss how you may be able to recover unpaid wages and pursue accountability under the law.

2025’s Biggest California Wrongful Death Cases: Four Landmark Outcomes

California juries are making it clear: when a death could have been prevented, the financial consequences can be huge. In 2025, some of the state’s largest wrongful death verdicts showed a clear change in how jurors view loss, corporate responsibility, and deterrence. Some believe this shift is tied to a post-COVID perspective, where the human cost of wrongful death feels more real and personal, leading to higher verdicts.

Wrongful Death Cases in California in 2025: Significant Examples

These three cases show that landmark wrongful death outcomes in California can look very different. They include a record jury verdict against a large company, a major settlement with a public agency over alleged system failures, and a published appellate decision that could change how damages are handled in future cases. Each case highlights a different way to achieve accountability and shows why wrongful death litigation was a major focus in 2025.

Case #1: Mae K. Moore v. Johnson & Johnson, et al.

Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

Case No.: 21STCV05513

A Summary of the Case: The plaintiffsSummary of the Case: The plaintiffs are the family or estate of Mae K. Moore, who are either wrongful death survivors or estate representatives, depending on the legal filings. The defendants are Johnson & Johnson and other related companies. The lawsuit claimed that Mae K. Moore’s illness and death were caused by asbestos exposure from the defendants’ products, and that the companies failed to provide warnings or acted improperly.

The case is a landmark 2025 California wrongful death case because of the sheer size of the award. Such a large amount signifies the continued escalation of “nuclear verdict” risk in California wrongful death/product exposure matters and the willingness of juries to impose extraordinary damages in cases involving alleged corporate safety failures.

Case #2: County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court (related to the Noah Cuatro wrongful death civil case)

Court: California Court of Appeals

Case No.: B339093 (Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist., Div. 4)

Attached to Trial Case No. 20STCV24771 filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court

Summary of the Case: Evangelina “Eva” Hernandez, both personally and as the legal representative for the child’s estate and siblings, filed a wrongful death lawsuit. She claimed that child welfare authorities failed to protect the child and did not act on clear warning signs of danger, including not following through on protective steps mentioned in the court record. In September 2025, LA County supervisors agreed to a $20 million settlement with the child’s family.

The Noah Cuatro wrongful death case was one of the most notable public-entity settlements in California in 2025. It brought attention to system accountability and involved a large settlement and significant public attention.

Case #3: Ng v. Superior Court

Case No.: G064257 (Cal. Ct. App., 4th Dist., Div. 3)

Underlying Trial Court Case Info: Orange County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2023-01360050

Summary of the Case: Joely Ng sued Los Alamitos Medical Center and doctors for medical malpractice and wrongful death after her husband, Kenneth Ng, allegedly received negligent care following a G-tube problem and improper placement. Ng developed sepsis and died three months later. The case led to a published appellate decision about whether wrongful death and survival or medical negligence claims can each have separate MICRA noneconomic damage caps, which is a key issue in California medical malpractice and wrongful death cases.

Ng v. Superior Court is a landmark 2025 wrongful death case because it changes how damages can be claimed and valued in medical malpractice wrongful death cases. It clarifies how wrongful death and survival claims are treated under MICRA’s cap rules.

Wrongful death cases are about more than just money, but the 2025 outcomes show something important: California juries and courts are more willing to impose serious consequences when families claim a preventable loss was caused by corporate wrongdoing, system failures, or poor care. Whether the result is a large verdict, a major public settlement, or a new legal precedent, the main theme is accountability and the need for careful, evidence-based legal work from the start.

If your family has lost a loved one and you think negligence or wrongdoing was involved, the wrongful death attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help you learn about your legal options and what to do next. Contact our offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago to talk about how you may be able to seek accountability under California law.

Did Starbucks Break New York City’s Fair Workweek Scheduling Law? $38.9 Million

Alleged labor law violations led to a multi-year investigation into Starbucks’ scheduling practices, resulting in a $38.9 million settlement, the largest worker-protection resolution in New York City history.

Matter: DCWP v. Starbucks Corporation (Consent Order / Settlement (administrative enforcement))

Enforcing agency: NYC Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP)

Public announcement date: December 1, 2025

Total settlement: $38.9 million

Restitution: $35.5+ million to workers

Civil penalties/costs: $3.4 million

Workers covered: 15,000+ hourly NYC Starbucks workers (July 2021–July 2024)

Note: This was not a court class action with a judicial “case number” in the way civil lawsuits are docketed; it was a DCWP enforcement matter resolved by a Consent Order (DCWP’s settlement format).

The Parties Involved: The Workers and Their Employer

The DCWP stated that the settlement will benefit more than 15,000 hourly Starbucks employees in New York City who worked during the specified period. Starbucks Corporation, the employer, is subject to the agreement, which covers scheduling practices at over 300 city locations.

A Brief Timeline of Events Leading to the Settlement:

• 2022: The investigation began due to multiple worker complaints at Starbucks locations.

• Using employee reports and company data they gathered as evidence, the DCWP identified broader patterns of alleged violations, leading to an expanded investigation across Starbucks locations citywide.

• Over 500,000 violations of the city’s Fair Workweek Law have been identified since 2021.

• The case was resolved through a Consent Order requiring monetary relief and future compliance with labor laws.

What Was the Main Issue Being Considered During the Investigation?

The central issue considered was whether Starbucks’ scheduling and hours practices for New York City hourly workers violated the Fair Workweek Law, particularly regarding predictable schedules, access to additional hours, and limits on reductions in hours and on schedule changes.

An Overview of the Alleged Violations Workers Cited:

• Unstable and unpredictable schedules made it difficult for workers to plan for child care, education, secondary employment, and other obligations.

• Unlawful weekly hour reductions; Starbucks routinely reduced its employees’ hours by 15% in one week, which is a violation of Fair Workweek protections.

• Blocking access to additional hours through picking up shifts, which contributed to involuntary part-time employment.

What Are the Protections Provided by Fair Workweek for NYC Workers?

• Employers must provide schedules 14 days in advance

• Employers must offer premium pay for schedule changes

• Employers must allow employees to decline extra time

• Employers must allow employees to pick up new shifts before hiring new staff

• Employers may not schedule workers for consecutive closing and opening shifts without written consent and a $100 premium

• Hour reductions are limited to over 15% without just cause

Learn More About the Starbucks Settlement for NYC Workers:

The settlement totals $38.9 million, including:

• $35.5+ million in restitution to impacted workers

• $3.4 million in civil penalties and costs

• A forward-looking requirement that Starbucks comply with the Fair Workweek Law going forward

• The DCWP stated that most hourly Starbucks employees in New York City will receive $50 for each week worked between July 4, 2021, and July 7, 2024. For example, an employee who worked 78 weeks could receive $3,900.

• The DCWP also stated that employees who experience violations after July 7, 2024, may be eligible for compensation by filing a complaint. The settlement also addressed issues related to layoffs and reinstatement rights under the law.

Worker-Protection Settlement: Why Was This a 2025 Landmark Case?

The DCWP v. Starbucks matter was notable for a few reasons:

1. Scale of Relief & Coverage: The almost $40M settlement covered over 15,000 workers, making this one of the most significant scheduling-law enforcement outcomes in 2025.

2. Fair Workweek Enforcement: This case shows that Fair Workweek laws are enforceable and that substantial restitution and penalties can be obtained for violations involving hour reductions and shift management.

3. Operational Practices & Liability: The DCWP reported over 500,000 violations, demonstrating how widespread scheduling decisions across many locations resulted in massive exposure.

FAQ: DCWP v. Starbucks & Fair Workweek for NYC Workers

Q: What is NYC’s Fair Workweek Law intended to protect?

A: The law is designed to protect the rights of fast food workers by requiring more predictable schedules, limiting last-minute changes and hour reductions, and ensuring workers have a fair opportunity to claim shifts that become available.

Q: Is this different from an FLSA overtime case?

A: Yes, the Fair Workweek Law addresses scheduling stability and hours practices, including advance notice, schedule changes, access to shifts, and protections related to hour reductions, rather than overtime hour calculations, classification, or overtime pay rate calculations.

Q: Does a “Consent Order” mean Starbucks admitted wrongdoing?

A: Not necessarily. A consent order is a settlement document used by the DCWP to resolve allegations and impose enforceable terms, such as payment and compliance obligations.

Q: What should employees do if they think their schedule rights were violated?

A: Workers should document schedule postings, changes, and hour reductions, and may seek relief by filing a complaint with the DCWP or consulting legal counsel regarding potential claims under relevant laws.

Individuals who believe their employer manipulated schedules, unlawfully reduced hours, restricted access to available shifts, or otherwise violated wage-and-hour or worker-protection laws may seek assistance from the employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP. The firm’s offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, and Chicago are available to discuss potential claims for unpaid compensation and accountability.

Did Poultry Processors Fix Worker Wages? $398.05 Million Class Settlement Receives Final Approval in 2025

A sweeping worker class action accused many of the country’s largest poultry processors of secretly coordinating to keep compensation artificially low in an alleged wage-fixing scheme.

Case: Jien, et al. v. Perdue Farms, Inc., et al.

Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland

Case No.: SAG-19-2521 (also docketed as No. 1:19-cv-02521)

Final approval date: June 5, 2025

Total settlements approved: $398.05 million

Who Were the Parties in the Case?

The plaintiffs are a proposed class of non-supervisory poultry-industry workers (typically production and maintenance employees) who allege they were harmed by an industry-wide agreement that depressed wages and benefits for workers in their positions at poultry processing facilities. Perdue Farms, Inc. and other poultry processors were the defendants in the case, with the plaintiffs alleging they worked together to use a wage-suppression conspiracy to their financial advantage.

A Brief Run Down of the Case History:

The litigation began in 2019 in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Plaintiffs alleged that major poultry companies used shared wage data and coordinated practices to reduce competition for labor and minimize their own labor costs. This kept compensation below what a competitive market would have set and allegedly limited workers in the industry's ability to earn a fair wage.

The case stretched across several years, including amended pleadings, motion practice, and discovery. During this time, groups of defendants reached separate settlement agreements at various points. By late 2024/early 2025, additional settlements pushed the combined total close to $400M, with the recovery described in public reporting as one of the largest of its kind for worker antitrust claims.

The court granted final approval to the settlements totaling over $398 million on June 5, 2025, and certified the settlement class to distribute the recovery.

The Main Question the Court Considered in the Case: Jien, et al. v. Perdue Farms, Inc., et al.

There was a fairly high-stakes question at the center of this case: Did poultry processors unlawfully conspire to suppress worker compensation by coordinating wages and benefits, rather than competing for workers? If the court determined the answer to be yes, the action was a violation of federal antitrust law.

What Were the Allegations Against the Poultry Farms?

The workers alleged that participating companies shared sensitive compensation information and used it to align pay practices across the industry, reducing normal competitive pressure that would otherwise increase wages.

Unlike a typical overtime or off-the-clock lawsuit, the theory here was not that workers were denied overtime premiums under wage-and-hour statutes. Instead, the allegation was that an anti-competitive agreement distorted the labor market, leading to lower pay rates than they should have been for the work performed.

Jien, et al. v. Perdue Farms, Inc., et al.: Settlement Outcome

The Maryland federal court granted final approval to settlements totaling just over $398 million, making it a Landmark Worker-Pay Settlement in 2025 for three practical reasons:

1. The size of the recovery. A $398.05 million class settlement is extraordinary in worker-pay litigation, even before considering the number of potentially eligible workers nationwide.

2. It targets wage-fixing directly. The case reflects an ongoing trend of using antitrust law to challenge alleged wage suppression, treating workers as participants in a competitive market that the law protects from collusion.

3. Industry-wide impact. The allegations and settlements involved multiple major processors across the poultry sector, making the litigation a major event for how large employers manage compensation benchmarking and information sharing.

FAQ: Jien, et al. v. Perdue Farms, Inc., et al.

Q: What’s the difference between “wage-fixing” and an overtime violation?

A: Overtime cases typically allege violations of wage-and-hour statutes (like the FLSA). Wage-fixing cases generally allege an anti-competitive agreement that suppresses wages; an antitrust theory focused on market competition.

Q: Who could be included in the settlement class in this case?

A: The settlement described the class as non-supervisory workers employed at poultry processing operations and related facilities during a certain time period (subject to the class definitions approved by the court).

Q: For a class action, what does “final approval” mean?

A: Final approval means the court has reviewed the class action settlement’s terms and concluded it is legally acceptable under current standards. Final approval clears the way for administration and payments.

Q: How are settlement payments typically calculated for this type of case/settlement?

A: Payment formulas commonly consider factors like how long a person worked during the class period and compensation-related information, with payments made on a pro rata basis under the plan approved by the court.

If you believe your employer kept your pay unlawfully low, failed to pay you all wages owed, or engaged in practices that shortchanged workers, the employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help you understand your options. Contact the firm’s offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago to discuss potential wage-and-hour or related worker-protection claims.

Did Disneyland Underpay Workers Under Anaheim’s Living Wage Ordinance? $233 Million Settlement Approved for 51,000+ Employees

When the long-running wage-and-hour class action against Disneyland finally ended, it was resolved with a $233 million settlement. Approved in September 2025, the settlement covered more than 51,000 of the popular amusement park resort’s employees.

Case: Grace et al. v. Walt Disney Co. et al.

Court: California Orange County Superior Court

Case No.: 30-2019-01116850

The Plaintiffs in the Case: Grace et al. v. Walt Disney Co. et al.

The plaintiffs are a group of current and former nonexempt hourly workers at Disney theme parks and hotels in Anaheim, California, who alleged they were not paid the minimum hourly rate and related service-charge amounts required under Anaheim’s Living Wage Ordinance during the covered period.

The Defendants in the Case: Grace v. Walt Disney Co.

In Grace et al. v. Walt Disney Co. et al., the defendants are The Walt Disney Company and Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. To further define the relationship between the two listed defendants in the case, the Walt Disney Company is the parent holding company, and Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. is commonly the operating subsidiary for parks/resorts.

A Brief Rundown of the Case History

The case against Disneyland questioned whether Disney was required to pay a higher hourly wage under Anaheim’s Living Wage Ordinance (Measure L), and if so, what back pay was owed to employees whose wages did not meet the minimums. When Measure L was approved in 2018, it established a living wage requirement for some types of hospitality employers tied to the Anaheim Resort District and/or city subsidies (a starting rate of $15/hr in 2019, with scheduled increases thereafter).

In December 2019, workers filed a putative class action in Orange County Superior Court, alleging that the Disneyland Resort violated Measure L by failing to pay the required minimum wage.

Litigation commenced - and continued - for several years while the parties disputed whether Disney was subject to the ordinance and, if so, what remedies would apply to the situation. A settlement was preliminarily approved in spring 2025, notices were issued to class members in May 2025, and the court granted final approval in mid-September 2025.

Main Question in the Case:

The main question in the case is whether the Living Wage Ordinance applies to Disney and, if so, whether hourly employees were underpaid relative to the ordinance’s minimum wage requirement.

Summary of the Allegations in the Wage and Hour Complaint:

The plaintiffs alleged that Disney failed to pay covered hourly workers the minimum hourly wage and related amounts mandated by Anaheim’s Living Wage Ordinance, beginning January 1, 2019.

Public settlement materials describe the ordinance as requiring escalating minimum hourly rates over time, including (as presented in the settlement information) $15/hour for 2019, followed by annual increases through 2025.

2025 Settlement Outcome of the Disneyland Wage and Hour Class Action

The court approved a $233,000,000 settlement for a reported class of 51,478 employees with $179.575 million distributed to class members, $17.475 million designated for civil penalties, and the remainder covering fees/costs, etc.

Settlement administration updates indicated that the order approving the settlement became “final” on November 17, 2025 (the “Effective Date” referenced by the administrator), after which payments began processing.

Why This Was a Landmark California Wage-and-Hour Settlement in 2025

1. The number of workers affected. In 2025, California reached one of the biggest wage-related settlements with a single employer. It covered more than 51,000 current and former employees.

2. Local laws that set minimum wages could lead to a lot of exposure. This disagreement was about a city law that raised wage requirements, not the state or federal minimum wage. The discussion shows how municipal wage laws can significantly increase the back pay that big businesses must pay when they work under public agreements or benefits.

3. Fines and back pay. The settlement structure showed how wage-and-hour cases in California can include both compensation and penalty components, with a large LWDA penalty component alongside employee payments.

FAQ: The Disneyland Wage and Hour Case

Q: What is Anaheim's "Living Wage Ordinance" (Measure L)?

A: Measure L, a voter-approved ordinance in Anaheim, establishes a higher minimum wage for specific hospitality employers linked to city subsidies and/or the Resort District. It will begin at $15 per hour in 2019 and gradually increase.

Q: Who can file a wage and hour lawsuit?

A: Any employee who believes their employer failed to pay all wages owed—such as minimum wage, overtime, meal/rest breaks, or off-the-clock work—may be able to file a wage-and-hour lawsuit, either individually or with other workers in a class or collective action.

Q: Who was covered by the settlement class?

A: The settlement class was defined to include nonexempt current and former workers employed at Disney theme parks and hotels in Anaheim during the covered period who were not paid at least the amounts required by the ordinance.

Q: What’s the Benefit of Filing a Wage and Hour Lawsuit?

A: Filing a wage-and-hour lawsuit can help you recover unpaid wages (and often additional damages and penalties), hold your employer accountable for illegal pay practices, and in some cases push the employer to change policies that impact you and your coworkers.

Q: Was Disney found liable by the court during the trial?

A: A court-approved class action settlement ended the litigation without a verdict on the merits of the case.

Q: What is Anaheim's "Living Wage Ordinance" (Measure L)?

A: Measure L, a voter-approved ordinance in Anaheim, establishes a higher minimum wage for specific hospitality employers linked to city subsidies and/or the Resort District. It will begin at $15 per hour in 2019 and gradually increase.

If you believe you were underpaid, denied legally required wage increases, or did not receive all compensation required under California wage laws or local wage ordinances, the employment law attorneys at Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik De Blouw LLP can help you assess your potential claims. Contact one of the firm’s offices in Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Riverside, or Chicago to discuss your options for pursuing unpaid wages and accountability under the law.