The component is not available at this moment. Please contact the site administrator.
by James W. Ward, J.D.; Employment Law Subject Matter Expert/Legal Writer and Editor, CalChamber
In a recent wage and hour case, a California Court of Appeal handed employers a rare win — concluding for the first time that nonexempt employees’ written prospective or “blanket” meal period waivers for work shifts between five and six hours were valid and enforceable in the absence of any evidence that the waivers were coercive or unconscionable (Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, Inc., No. B322799 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 21, 2025)).
In this case, La Kimba Brandsbery and Cheri Brakensiek worked as veterinary technicians for Vicar, which operates a network of veterinary hospitals. They brought a class action lawsuit against their former employer, alleging, among other things, that the employer failed to provide meal periods as required by Labor Code section 512 and Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Orders 4 and 5.
Under Labor Code section 512, employers cannot employ someone for a work period of more than five hours without providing an unpaid, off-duty meal period of at least 30 minutes — except if the total work period is no more than six hours. In that case, the meal period “may be waived by mutual consent of both the employer and employee.” Section 11(A) of IWC Wage Orders 4 and 5, applicable to the employees in this case, contains the same meal period wavier language.
In this case, the employees signed meal period waivers that stated the following:
"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."
Vicar argued that the employees’ written meal period waivers prospectively waived all waivable meal periods because neither the Labor Code nor the wage orders specify what form the waiver must take, or when or how it may be obtained.
The employees disagreed, arguing that prospective meal period waivers were prohibited under the applicable law, California Supreme Court precedent and Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) guidance, and allowing such waivers would permit employers to circumvent meal break requirements and deny employees a meaningful opportunity to exercise their right to meal breaks.
The trial court concluded that the prospective meal break waivers were enforceable and granted Vicar’s motion for summary adjudication — determining that the plain language of section 512 and the applicable IWC Wage Orders permit prospective waivers.
After the trial court decision, the plaintiffs petitioned for a writ of mandate, which the Court of Appeal denied. The plaintiffs and Vicar then settled the remaining claims with the plaintiffs reserving the right to appeal the trial court’s ruling on the meal break waivers. After the trial court entered judgment for Vicar, the plaintiffs appealed.
On appeal, after considering the language of the Labor Code and IWC Wage Orders, the relevant legislative and administrative history, and California Supreme Court precedent, the court came to the same conclusion as the trial court in determining that prospective written waivers of meal periods for shifts between five and six hours are valid under the Labor Code and the applicable IWC Wage Orders — at least under the circumstances presented in this case.
In looking at the plain text of Labor Code section 512 and section 11(A) of the Wage Orders, the court noted that neither specifically address the timing and form of a meal period waiver for shifts between five and six hours. Vicar argued that since the language at issue places no restrictions on the timing of waivers, it doesn’t prohibit prospective waivers.
However, other wage order provisions expressly authorize written and revocable prospective meal period waivers in other contexts, such as section 11(D) of Wage Orders 4 and 5, which allows health care employees to prospectively waive second meal periods in writing when working shifts over eight hours.
Pointing to these other meal waiver provisions, the plaintiffs argued that the IWC didn’t intend prospective waivers outside of circumstances in which they are specifically provided for. In other words, because Labor Code section 512 and the applicable wage order provisions in this case don’t expressly allow for prospective written waivers, they are prohibited. The court conceded that the text was susceptible to both parties’ interpretations and went on to analyze the legislative and administrative history to determine the intent behind the law.
The court recounted the history of the IWC Wage Orders and Labor Code section 512, starting its analysis all the way back in the 1940s and moving to the present day. The court also analyzed the California Supreme Court’s leading meal and rest break case, Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court.
After a thorough analysis of these sources, the Court of Appeal essentially concluded that nothing in the relevant law or legislative and administrative history firmly supported the plaintiffs’ contention that Labor Code section 512 and section 11(A) of IWC Wage Orders 4 and 5 prohibit prospective meal period waivers, especially in the absence of any evidence of coercion by an employer or that the agreement was unconscionable, meaning it was so unfair in its terms and how it was presented to the employees that it should be ruled unenforceable.
The court noted that in this case, the written meal period waiver was entered by mutual consent, and the employees could revoke it at any time. Additionally, the court noted that the plaintiffs didn’t argue or submit any evidence suggesting the meal period waivers were unconscionable. Nor did the employees argue that the waivers had the effect of discouraging workers from taking meal periods to which they are entitled.
The employees didn’t argue that they unknowingly signed the waivers, that Vicar coerced them into signing the waivers because it had greater bargaining power or that the waivers could not be freely revoked at any time. Importantly, the court noted “[w]e would have serious reservations regarding the validity of prospective waivers of meal period under such circumstances.” The court’s statement suggests that if the plaintiffs presented evidence that the agreement was unfair or that the employer coerced or pressured the employees to sign waivers or otherwise skip breaks that they were entitled to, the court may have ruled against the employer.
This case is a win for employers — providing guidance on the use of prospective meal period waivers. Here are some key considerations for employers using meal period waivers:
Employers should note that this case was limited to the first meal period waiver under Labor Code section 512 and IWC Wage Orders 4 and 5. Meal period requirements, however, may vary by industry and the applicable Wage Orders.
Employers should consult with legal counsel if considering the use of prospective meal waivers to help ensure compliance.