In a significant ruling for employers, the California Court of Appeal has validated the use of “prospective” meal period waivers, allowing workers to voluntarily waive their meal breaks in advance, under certain conditions. The case, Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, Inc., marks a key moment in the ongoing discussion about meal period laws in California.
What’s at Stake?
California employers often ask employees to sign meal period waivers during onboarding. These waivers allow employees to forgo meal periods during shifts of specific lengths—typically waiving the first meal period for shifts between five and six hours and the second for shifts between 10 and 12 hours. Before today, California courts had not weighed in on the legality of these “prospective” waivers.
In a victory for employers, the Court of Appeal ruled that such waivers are enforceable, provided they are not unconscionable or coerced.
The Case Background
In 2014, La Kimba Bradsbery and Cheri Brakensiek filed a class-action lawsuit against Vicar Operating, Inc., claiming a violation of Labor Code section 512. This law requires employers to provide a 30-minute off-duty meal period when an employee works five or more hours, with a second meal period required for shifts of 10 hours or more.
Both plaintiffs had signed a meal period waiver in 2009, stating that they voluntarily waived their right to take a meal break for shifts of six hours or less. This waiver also clarified that they could revoke it at any time by informing their manager in writing.
The company sought a ruling on the validity of these waivers. The trial court sided with Vicar, upholding the enforceability of the waivers. Though the plaintiffs settled other claims, they appealed the court’s decision regarding the waiver.
Court’s Decision
The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s decision, stating that prospective meal period waivers are permissible under the law, as long as they are not unreasonable or coerced. It noted that the relevant sections of California’s Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders 4 and 5—governing professional and technical workers—are silent on the issue of whether waivers must be “prospective” or “as-accrued,” and whether they should be written or oral.
The court reviewed the legislative and administrative history of these provisions and concluded that the law does not prohibit prospective written waivers, as long as they give employees the choice to waive the meal break voluntarily.
Plaintiffs had argued that these waivers unfairly favored employers, potentially undermining the protection workers receive under California’s robust meal break laws. However, the court rejected this argument, referencing the IWC’s stance that allowing meal period waivers promotes employee freedom by giving workers the option to skip a break and leave work early.
However, the court clarified that prospective waivers would not be enforceable if they were coerced, signed unknowingly, or unable to be revoked at any time.
The Takeaway for Employers
This ruling represents a crucial win for employers, particularly as prospective meal period waivers had been under increasing scrutiny. While they have been found enforceable in federal courts, this decision offers further support for employers in California.
However, the court’s ruling focused solely on the first meal period waiver and did not address the second meal period or other wage orders that might include similar language. Employers should consult with legal counsel to understand how this decision impacts their specific circumstances, as the application of the ruling may vary based on the details of each case.
[View source.]
