California Court Upholds Use of Voluntary Meal Waivers for Short Shifts

California Court Upholds Use of Voluntary Meal Waivers for Short Shifts

LOS ANGELES — A California appeals court has ruled that employers may use written, voluntary waivers to forgo 30-minute meal breaks for employees working shifts between five and six hours, so long as the waivers are revocable and not coercive.

The ruling came in a published decision issued April 21 by the Second Appellate District in Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, Inc. The court affirmed a trial court’s decision that upheld Vicar Operating’s use of blanket meal period waivers signed by employees at the beginning of their employment.

At issue was whether California Labor Code section 512 and corresponding wage orders allow for prospective, written waivers of meal breaks, rather than requiring employees to waive each break on a shift-by-shift basis. Section 512 guarantees a 30-minute unpaid meal break for employees working more than five hours in a day, but allows this break to be waived by mutual consent if the total shift does not exceed six hours.

The plaintiffs, La Kimba Bradsbery and Cheri Brakensiek, former veterinary employees of Vicar, argued that prospective waivers allow employers to sidestep statutory protections and effectively deny workers their right to a meal break. They also claimed that valid waivers must be made daily or after employees know their exact schedules.

But the appeals court disagreed. In a unanimous opinion, it found that neither the Labor Code nor the relevant Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) wage orders restrict the form or timing of such waivers. “The text of section 512 and the wage orders are silent regarding the timing (prospective or as-accrued) and form (written or oral) of a meal period waiver,” the court wrote.

The ruling emphasized that the employees in this case signed voluntary waivers that explicitly informed them of their right to revoke the agreement at any time. The plaintiffs did not claim the waivers were signed unknowingly, under duress, or that they were discouraged from taking breaks.

History Supports Use of Prospective Waivers

The decision noted that legislative and administrative history supports the enforceability of these waivers. Since the 1950s, IWC wage orders have allowed employees to waive meal periods for shifts under six hours by mutual consent. Written prospective waivers have also been viewed by the IWC as protective for both employers and workers.

Cited Case and Agency Letter Do Not Apply

Plaintiffs cited Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court to argue that waivers should only be allowed after the meal period is triggered. The court found this interpretation misplaced, stating that Brinker dealt with whether employers must ensure no work is performed during a break—not when a waiver can be signed.

The court also rejected reliance on a 2003 opinion letter from the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, noting that the letter applied to a different wage order governing agricultural work and was based on now-outdated language.

Final Decision: Waivers Valid, Case Closed

Ultimately, the court held that Vicar’s blanket meal waivers—signed in advance but revocable at any time—were lawful under California labor law. “A prospective written waiver may promote the protection of employees,” the ruling stated, especially when employees retain the power to revoke without retaliation.

The judgment in favor of Vicar was affirmed, and the company was awarded costs on appeal.