California Court Confirms Enforceability of Prospective Written Meal Period Waivers
On April 21, 2025, the California Second District Court of Appeal issued an instructive decision in the case of Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, Inc. The appellate court confirmed the enforceability of prospective written meal period waivers. There are important implications for wage and hour law. Within this article, our Riverside County and Coachella Valley employment lawyer provides an overview of the case.
Case Review: Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, Inc
The Facts
La Kimba Bradsbery and Cheri Brakensiek filed a class action lawsuit against their employer, Vicar Operating, Inc. That company operates a network of veterinary hospitals in California. The plaintiffs alleged that the business violated California Labor Code § 512 as well as several related Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Orders when it failed to provide a state-mandated 30-minute meal period during shifts lasting between five and six hours. They contended that Vicar’s practice of requiring employees to sign prospective meal period waivers was unlawful. For its part, the employer countered that the waivers were valid.
The Legal Issue
The appellate court was tasked with determining whether or not the meal break waiver signed by the employees was legally enforceable. The central legal question in this case was relatively straightforward:
- Does California law permit employers and employees to enter into prospective, written agreements waiving meal periods for shifts between five and six hours?
More specifically, the court was focused on whether these waivers—which were signed at the outset of employment and were applicable to all qualifying shifts in the future, satisfied the requirement that employer and employee mutually consented, as stipulated in Labor Code § 512.
The Decision
The California appeals court ruled in favor of the employer. Upon review, it affirmed the trial court’s decision. It held that prospective meal period waivers are enforceable—but only under certain conditions. The court reasoned that neither the Labor Code nor the IWC Wage Orders explicitly prohibit prospective waivers as long as all of the following conditions were satisfied:
- The waiver was voluntarily signed by the employee;
- The waiver was revocable at any time by the employee;
- The waiver was not the result of coercion or undue influence; and
- The waiver was not unconscionable or against public policy.
The court found no evidence that the waivers in question were signed under duress or that employees were discouraged from taking meal breaks or revoking the waivers. Therefore, the waivers were deemed consistent with the statutory framework and the purpose of meal period requirements.
The Implications for Employers
The decision provides clarity for California employers regarding the implementation of meal period waivers. These waivers can be used if best practices are followed by the employer, including:
- Using a standalone waiver form;
- Clearly stating that signing the waiver is voluntary and that it can be revoked;
- Ensuring that employees are not coerced into signing and are informed of their rights; and
- Maintaining records of signed waivers and, if applicable, any revocations.
Contact Our California Employment Lawyer for Employers
At Sloat Law Group, APC, our California employment attorney provides solutions-forward guidance and advocacy to businesses and organizations. Contact us today for your fully confidential, no obligation initial case review. We provide legal representation to employers in the full range of workplace law matters in Coachella Valley, Riverside County, and statewide in California.
Source:
courts.ca.gov/opinion/published/2025-04-21/b322799
