California law requires employers to provide an off-duty meal period of at least 30 minutes to an employee who works more than five hours in a day and a second meal period to an employee who works more than 10 hours. However, it also authorizes employees to waive meal periods under limited circumstances. In the April 21, 2025 decision of Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, Inc., 110 Cal. App. 5th 899 (2025), a California Court of Appeal concluded that revocable, prospective waivers signed by employees are enforceable in the absence of evidence they were unconscionable or unduly coercive.
1. Background Of Case
In 2014, two employees sued their former employer, Vicar Operating, Inc., alleging claims on behalf of a class of employees. They alleged Vicar failed to provide them with the meal periods required by Labor Code Section 512 and Wage Orders 4 and 5. In response, Vicar asserted the employees signed a valid, written agreement that prospectively waived all waivable meal periods throughout their employment. The agreement provided the employees could revoke it at any time.
Vicar moved for summary adjudication regarding the validity of the waiver under Labor Code Section 512 and the wage orders. The trial court found the waivers valid and ruled for Vicar. The court of appeal affirmed the decision, finding that prospective written waivers of a 30-minute meal period for shifts between five and six hours accords with the text and purpose of Section 512. The legislative and administrative history confirmed the legislature and Industrial Welfare Commission determined such waivers are consistent with the welfare of employees.
2. Vicar Operated A Network Of Veterinary Hospitals
The two plaintiffs worked for Vicar, which operated a network of veterinary hospitals. In April 2009, both plaintiffs signed a written meal period waiver.
The parties stipulated that Vicar could file a motion for summary adjudication to determine whether its blanket meal period waivers to prospectively waive meal periods on qualifying shifts are enforceable under California law. Vicar asserted as an affirmative defense to liability that the employees validly waived the disputed meal periods. Oddly, the employees argued the prospective waivers were prohibited by California law. They further argued employees could waive meal periods for a given shift only after they were scheduled to work that shift. Neither argument appeared logical, let alone persuasive. The trial court granted Vicar’s motion for summary adjudication based on the plain language in the law.
The employees conceded that Section 512 and the wage orders were silent as to when the first meal period could be waived, yet argued that prospective waivers were impermissible. This argument was ill-fated. The employees argued that other features of the wage orders expressly stated that waivers could apply prospectively and, by negative implication, the failure of the meal period provisions in dispute to do the same thing implied that prospective waivers were unlawful. The court determined that the employees read too much into an assumed “implication” as meal period waivers did not expressly need to be written for shifts of five to six hours.
3. Conclusion
The court summarized its conclusion by stating: “Plaintiffs have not demonstrated Vicar’s use of prospective written waivers violates the Labor Code or the applicable wage orders at issue in this case.” On a practical level, this means that employers can enter into waivers with employees who work 5 to 6 hours to voluntarily waive their meal period. While the waiver in issue was written and revocable on its face, the court declined to opine whether a written waiver is necessary or whether it can be oral. Employers may prefer to avoid the risk of using an oral agreement to waive a meal period where employees work 6 or fewer hours and instead use written waivers that document the consent of both parties.
The topics of meal periods and meal period waivers are addressed in Section 4.2 of the Wage and Hour Manual for California Employers (27th Edition) by Attorney Richard J. Simmons of Sheppard Mullin. The book is available from Castle Publications, LLC.
To read more articles like this one, subscribe to the ALERT Newsletter today!
About The Author
Richard J. Simmons is a Partner in the law firm of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP in Los Angeles. He represents employers in various employment law matters involving litigation throughout the country and general advice regarding state and federal wage and hour laws, employment discrimination, wrongful discharge, employee discipline and termination, employee benefits, affirmative action, union representation proceedings, and arbitrations. Mr. Simmons received his B.A., summa cum laude, from the University of Massachusetts, where he was a Commonwealth Scholar and graduated in the Phi Kappa Phi Honor Society. He received his J.D. from Berkeley Law at the University of California at Berkeley where he was the Editor-in-Chief of the Industrial Relations Law Journal, now the Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law.
Mr. Simmons argued the only case before the California Supreme Court that produced a victory for employers and business in 2018. He was recently recognized as the Labor and Employment Attorney of the Year by the Los Angeles Business Journal and was inducted into the Employment Lawyers Hall of Fame. He has lectured nationally on wage and hour, employment discrimination, wrongful termination, and other employment and labor relations matters. He is a member of the National Advisory Board to the Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law, published by Berkeley Law at the University of California at Berkeley. He was also appointed by the California Industrial Welfare Commission as a member of three Minimum Wage Boards for the State of California.