On April 21, 2025, 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 plaintiffs in Bradsbery alleged that their employer failed to provide them with meal periods as required by law, despite their signing revocable written agreements prospectively waiving their 30-minute meal period for work shifts between five and six hours. The waiver stated:

I hereby voluntarily waive my right to a meal break when my shift is 6 hours or less. I understand that I am entitled to take an unpaid 30-minute meal break within my first five hours of work; however, I am voluntarily waiving that meal break. I understand that I can revoke this waiver at any time by giving written revocation to my manager.

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, on the other hand, took the position that the waivers were unlawful because neither applicable law, the wage orders, nor the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) Opinion Letter. The plaintiffs sought to have the employer pay premiums for missed meal periods.

In making its decision, the court considered the text and intent of the relevant statute and wage orders, particularly with respect to the meaning of the phrase “waived by mutual consent,” and whether that meaning prohibits the prospective written waivers signed by the employees. In doing so, the court notes that prospective written waivers were first instituted at the request of employees on wage boards in 1976, and that the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC), the entity responsible for formulating 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 in jobs where an employee cannot take an off-duty meal, the court concluded:

… [W]e 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.

Another key fact relevant to the court’s decision?  The waivers issue in this case were revocable by the employees at any time (without threat of retaliation).

In arguing against the validity of the waivers, the employees in Bradsbery relied on a California Supreme Court case, Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court. The employees contended that Brinker required a finding that “an employee may waive a meal break only when he or she ‘has worked’ or ‘is scheduled to work’ … a shift requiring a meal break.” The court disagreed, stating the employees “overread” Brinker because the decision did not address the timing or circumstances under which a meal period may be waived.

The employees also argued that a 2003 DLSE opinion letter requires meal period waivers to be made on a daily basis, so “blanket” waivers are invalid. In rejecting this assertion, the court noted that the opinion letter did not apply because the employer at issue was covered by a different wage order. 

Notably, the court recognized that meal period waivers could be invalid if employees unknowingly signed them, were forced to sign them upon threat of termination, or could not revoke them at any time. 

Meal period waivers are useful tools. However, they must be properly drafted and implemented. Although the Bradsbery decision is a relatively “narrow” ruling and does not address prospective oral waivers of meal periods, it provides much-needed clarity as to the enforceability of revocable meal period waivers prospectively signed by employees.