The trial court granted Vicar’s motion and determined that California law permitted the prospective meal period waivers. The plaintiffs appealed.
For decades, California employers have implemented prospective written meal period waivers. Two employees recently challenged whether prospective revocable, written meal period waivers when working shifts between five and six hours were enforceable under California law. The Court of Appeal in Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, Inc., 110 Cal. App. 5th 899 (2025) held that, as a matter of first impression, the employees’ written meal period waivers were enforceable.
Relevant California Law Regarding Meal Periods
California Labor Code Section 512 requires employers to provide its employees with the opportunity to take 30-minute uninterrupted, duty-free meal period at or before the end of their fifth hour of work. Section 512 further provides that if the employee’s total hours of work for the day is no more than six hours, the employee may elect to waive taking their first meal period by mutual consent of both the employee and the employer. The text of Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order Nos. 4-2001 (Wage Order 4) and 5-2001 (Wage Order 5) contains similar provisions.
Background
In 2014, two former employees brought a putative class action against Vicar Operating Inc., a veterinary hospital operator. Plaintiffs alleged that Vicar failed to provide them and class members with compliant meal periods as required by Section 512 and Wage Orders 4 and 5. Plaintiffs also alleged that they were entitled to a meal period premium payment calculated at one hour of pay at their regular rate of pay for every noncompliant meal period.
Trial Court Holding
Vicar filed a motion for summary adjudication to determine whether its “blanket” meal period waivers are enforceable under California law. In its motion, Vicar asserted that plaintiffs signed valid written meal period waivers electing to prospectively waive their first meal period when working shifts between five and six hours for the duration of their employment with Vicar. The meal period waiver provided that plaintiffs could revoke the waiver at any time.
Specifically, the meal period waiver stated:
I hereby voluntarily waive my right to a meal break when my shift is 6 hours or less. I understand that I am entitled to take an unpaid 30-minute meal break within my first five hours of work; however, I am voluntarily waiving that meal break. I understand that I can revoke this waiver at any time by giving written revocation to my manager.
Plaintiffs opposed summary judgment on the basis that an employee could not prospectively waive all of their meal periods for an indefinite duration of working shifts between five and six hours. According to plaintiffs, the decision to forego a meal period must be made personally by each employee on a daily basis.
The trial court granted Vicar’s motion and determined that California law permitted the prospective meal period waivers. The plaintiffs appealed.
Court of Appeal Decision
On appeal, the court was tasked with interpreting Section 512 and the wage orders to determine whether California law permits prospective meal period waivers. The court found that the text of Section 512 and the wage orders were silent regarding the timing (prospective or as accrued) and form (written or oral) of meal period waivers. As to the legislative and administrative history, the court found that the legislature did not intend to prohibit prospective written meal period waivers. Accordingly, the court concluded that California law permits revocable, prospective meal period waivers provided there is no evidence that the waivers are unconscionable or unduly coercive.
What Does This Mean for Employers?
While Bradsbery addressed only meal period waivers pertaining the first meal period, the reasoning in this decision arguably also applies to waivers of second meal periods.
Employers that do not have meal period waivers in place should work with employment counsel to carefully consider the risks and benefits of waivers. Employers that are currently using meal period waivers in their workplace should review and make any needed changes in light of Bradsbery. Below are a few recommendations employers should consider when reviewing meal period waivers.
Ensure That Meal Period Waivers Are in Writing
The Court of Appeal in Bradsbery explicitly stated that its decision did not decide whether Section 512 and the wage orders permit the prospective oral waiver of meal periods. As such, employers should ensure that all meal period waivers are in writing.
Ensure That Meal Period Waivers Are Revocable
Employers should include a provision in the meal period waiver that allows the employee to revoke the waiver at any time should an employee wish to take their meal period when on any given workday.
Meal Period Waivers Must Not Be Unconscionable or Unduly Coercive
The Court of Appeal in Bradsbery left open the possibility of invalidating waivers that are unconscionable or unduly coercive. To prevent coercion, employers should implement a standalone meal period waiver that is not buried in an employee handbook or among other employment documents, clearly communicate the meal period waiver to employees and not pressure employees to sign the waiver or retaliate against them for their decision to sign or not sign the waiver or their decision to revoke the waiver.
For More Information
If you have any questions about this Alert, please contact Aaron T. Winn, Brittany Ranelli, any of the attorneys in our Employment, Labor, Benefits and Immigration Practice Group or the attorney in the firm with whom you are regularly in contact.
Disclaimer: This Alert has been prepared and published for informational purposes only and is not offered, nor should be construed, as legal advice. For more information, please see the firm's full disclaimer.