Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives

In a case of first impression, Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, Inc., the California Court of Appeal held that a prospective, written waiver of meal periods for work shifts between five and six hours is enforceable. In other words, forward-looking “blanket” written waivers are valid in the absence of any evidence of coercion or unconscionability. This recent decision holds significant implications for employers, especially as to how employers can use meal break waivers in their businesses.

Case Background

The plaintiffs, La Kimba Bradsbery and Cheri Brakensiek, former employees of Vicar Operating, Inc. (“Vicar”), a veterinary hospital operator, filed a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Orders. Vicar operates a network of veterinary hospitals, where Bradsbery worked as a veterinary technician and Brakensiek as a veterinary assistant and technician. In April 2009, each plaintiff signed a written waiver of their meal periods for shifts of six hours or less that was revocable at any time by giving a “written revocation” to a manager. Vicar considered this waiver valid under Labor Code section 512, which states a meal period may be waived by “mutual consent of both the employer and employee” if the employee’s shift is no more than six hours.

The plaintiffs argued that Vicar’s conduct violated the statutory requirement for meal periods because, in their view, prospective waivers permit employers to circumvent the statutory meal break requirements and deny employees a meaningful opportunity to exercise their right to meal breaks. Vicar defended its practice, stating that the waivers were valid as the Labor Code did not specify the form they must take. The trial court sided with Vicar, granting its motion for summary adjudication on the issue.

Appeals Court Decision

On appeal, the issue addressed by the court, which had been previously unsettled, was whether revocable, prospective written waivers of meal periods for shifts between five and six hours were enforceable. The court ruled in favor of Vicar, affirming the validity of these waivers provided they are not unconscionable or coercive.

The court based its decision in the historical and legislative context of Section 512, which aims to balance operational flexibility with employee rights. Indeed, the court found that the administrative history of the Wage Orders reflected the IWC had not viewed prospective written waivers as negatively as the plaintiffs suggested. According to the IWC, the option to waive a meal period promoted “freedom” for employees by giving them the choice of taking a meal period or ending their shift early.

Implications for Employers

These key takeaways from the Bradsbery decision offer clarity and guidance for employers regarding meal period waivers.

1. Prospective Waivers: The Bradsbery Court held that employers can have employees sign prospective waivers for meal periods, provided these are revocable and not coerced. Such waivers can help manage operational needs without infringing on employees’ rights.
2. Documentation and Mutual Consent: The Bradsbery decision applies to written waivers that explicitly state they can be withdrawn by the employee by providing a written revocation.  Written waivers support that the waiver was knowing and voluntary, and that the employee was informed how to rescind the waiver.
3. Avoiding Unconscionable Waivers: Employers should carefully assess the conditions under which waivers are obtained to avoid any claims of coercion or unconscionability, which could invalidate the waiver.

Conclusion

In addition to confirming that prospective meal break waivers are lawful, the Bradsbery decision offers employers helpful guidelines for how to successfully implement such waivers.       

For further guidance, employers should consult legal professionals to tailor their meal period policies to meet both legal standards and workplace needs.