In the recent decision of Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, Inc., a California appellate court addressed the enforceability of prospective written meal period waivers for employees working shifts between five and six hours. The court affirmed that such waivers are valid under the California Labor Code and applicable Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Orders, provided they are mutual, voluntary, and revocable at any time.

In the Bradsbery case, two former employees of Vicar Operating, Inc., a veterinary hospital operator, filed a class-action lawsuit alleging that the company violated California Labor Code section 512 by failing to provide meal periods for employees working shifts between five and six hours. The plaintiffs argued that they and other class members were required to work these shifts without receiving mandated meal breaks and without having mutually consented to waive them.

Vicar defended itself by presenting written meal period waiver agreements signed by the plaintiffs during their employment. These waivers explicitly allowed the employees to voluntarily forgo meal breaks for shifts not exceeding six hours and included provisions stating that the waivers could be revoked at any time.

The trial court found these waivers to be valid and enforceable, concluding that they complied with the requirements of mutual consent and revocability as outlined in Labor Code section 512 and the applicable IWC Wage Orders. The California Court of Appeal affirmed this decision, emphasizing that in the absence of evidence indicating coercion or unconscionability, prospective written meal period waivers for shifts between five and six hours are legally permissible. The court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that written waivers must be made on a daily basis.

Key Takeaways for California Employers:

• Prospective meal break waivers are permissible: Employees can voluntarily and prospectively waive their right to a 30-minute meal period for shifts lasting no more than six hours – daily written waivers are not required.
• Mutual consent required: The meal waiver for short shifts must be based on mutual consent between the employer and employee.
• No coercion or unconscionability: The short shift meal waiver cannot be the result of coercion – the waiver should be clear regarding the employee’s entitlement to meal breaks under California law and the waiver’s implications.
• Revocability: Employees must retain the right to revoke the meal waiver at any time.

While the California Supreme Court has not issued an opinion on this issue, this decision nevertheless provides clarity for California employers on the lawful implementation of prospective meal period waivers for shorter shifts. The Bradsbery decision is a helpful reminder to California employers to check their policies and procedures regarding meal breaks and make sure their meal break waivers and practices are in compliance with the law.