On April 21, the California Court of Appeal issued a significant ruling in favor of employers. In Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, the court held that revocable meal period waivers prospectively signed by employees are enforceable, unless the waivers are unconscionable or unduly coercive.

The Facts

The plaintiffs in Bradsbery claimed their employer failed to provide them with meal periods as required by law, even though they signed revocable written agreements prospectively waiving their 30-minute meal period for work shifts between five and six hours.

The employer argued that the waivers were valid because “neither the Labor Code nor the wage orders specify what form the waiver must take, or when or how it may be obtained.” The plaintiffs, however, contested that the waivers were unlawful because the applicable wage orders do not contain waiver provisions for shifts between five and six hours, and neither the California Supreme Court nor the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) had sanctioned such waivers.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the text and intent of the Labor Code section 512 and the wage orders. The court found that prospective written waivers were first instituted in 1976 and that the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC), the entity responsible for formulating the wage orders, viewed the option to waive a meal period as promoting “‘freedom’ for employees by giving them the choice of taking a meal period or ending their shift early.” Moreover, because the IWC has expressly allowed written waivers in cases where employees work shifts longer than eight hours and where employee cannot take off-duty meal periods, the court concluded:

… we believe it is reasonable to infer the Legislature and IWC wanted to be more protective of employees who worked longer shifts and for that reason spelled out in detail what is required to waive a right to a meal break for shifts over eight hours for health care employees and over 12 hours for all other covered employees. But it does not follow that when employees work fewer hours, here between five and six hours, that there was also an intent to prohibit a prospective written waiver.

Key Takeaways and Next Steps

The court made clear that if the employees had argued that the waivers were “unconscionable,” or had the effect of discouraging workers from taking meal periods, the ruling may have come out differently. For example, if employees unknowingly signed the waivers, were forced to sign them on threat of termination, or could not revoke them, the waivers would be invalid.

Although the decision in Bradsbery is relatively narrow (e.g., it does not address whether verbal waivers would be sufficient), it provides clarity as to the enforceability of revocable meal period waivers prospectively signed by employees.

Now what? If you don’t currently use meal period waivers, you should consider doing so, consistent with the wage order(s) applicable to your organization. (If you aren’t sure which wage order(s) apply, this link will help: https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/whichiwcorderclassifications.pdf.)  If you have already implemented a waiver program, review them to ensure they comply with the Bradsbery decision.