California Employers Gain Clarity on Prospective Meal Break Waivers for Short Shifts

In a landmark decision for California employers, the California Court of Appeal has affirmed the legality of prospective meal break waivers for shifts between five and six hours. The ruling in Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, Inc. (B322799, April 21, 2025) provides much-needed certainty for businesses navigating the complexities of California Labor Code and Wage Orders. This decision is particularly significant for industries like healthcare, retail, and professional services, where short shifts are commonplace. By allowing revocable, written meal break waivers, employers can now confidently implement flexible scheduling practices while ensuring compliance with state labor laws.

This blog post explores the Bradsbery ruling in detail, its implications for employers, and practical steps to ensure compliance with meal period waivers. We’ll also discuss the broader context of California employment law, the historical significance of meal break regulations, and how businesses can leverage this ruling to enhance operational efficiency while safeguarding employee rights.

Understanding the Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, Inc. Case

The Bradsbery case centered on a dispute between former employees of a veterinary hospital and their employer, Vicar Operating, Inc. The plaintiffs alleged that Vicar failed to provide meal breaks as mandated by Labor Code section 512 and Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Orders 4 and 5. These laws require employers to provide a 30-minute, uninterrupted meal period for employees working shifts longer than five hours, unless a valid waiver is in place.

Vicar’s defense hinged on written meal period waivers signed by the plaintiffs at the start of their employment. These waivers allowed employees to voluntarily skip their meal break for shifts of six hours or less, with the explicit condition that the waiver could be revoked at any time. The plaintiffs argued that such prospective waivers—often referred to as “blanket waivers”—were invalid. They contended that meal break waivers should only be permitted on a shift-by-shift basis, with employees consenting after knowing their exact hours for the day.

The California Court of Appeal decisively rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments, delivering a ruling that clarifies the legality of prospective meal break waivers under California law. Let’s break down the court’s key findings and their implications.

The Court’s Ruling: Key Findings

The Bradsbery decision provides several critical insights into the application of meal break waivers for short shifts. Here are the court’s main conclusions:

    1    No Prohibition on Prospective Waivers

The court found no language in Labor Code section 512 or Wage Orders 4 and 5 that prohibits prospective waivers for meal periods on shifts between five and six hours. This ruling confirms that employers can secure advance consent from employees to skip meal breaks, provided the waiver meets certain conditions (e.g., it is voluntary and revocable).

    2    Mutual Consent Without Daily Requirements

The court clarified that mutual consent between the employer and employee is sufficient for a valid waiver. There is no requirement for employees to provide consent on a daily or shift-specific basis. A single, properly drafted waiver that remains in effect until revoked is legally permissible.

    3    Support for Written, Revocable Waivers

The waivers used by Vicar were upheld because they were written, voluntary, and revocable at any time. The court emphasized that such waivers align with the legislative intent of the IWC, which has historically recognized written waivers as a means of balancing employee choice with employer clarity.

    4    No Evidence of Coercion

The court noted that the waivers in question were not coerced, and employees retained the right to revoke them at any time. This underscores the importance of ensuring that waivers are implemented in a way that respects employee autonomy.

    5    Distinction from Brinker

The court distinguished Bradsbery from the seminal Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) case. While Brinker addressed the timing and provision of meal periods, it did not specify how or when waivers could be executed. The Bradsbery ruling fills this gap by affirming the validity of prospective waivers for short shifts.

Implications for California Employers

The Bradsbery ruling is a significant win for California employers, particularly those in industries with flexible scheduling needs. Below are the key takeaways for businesses looking to implement or refine their meal break waiver policies:

1. Prospective Written Waivers Are Permissible for Short Shifts

Employers can now confidently ask employees to sign advance written waivers for meal periods on shifts between five and six hours, provided the following conditions are met:

    •    The waiver is voluntary, meaning employees are not pressured or coerced into signing.

    •    The waiver is revocable at any time, giving employees the flexibility to opt out as needed.

    •    The waiver applies only to shifts of six hours or less, as longer shifts are subject to stricter requirements.

This flexibility is particularly valuable for industries like healthcare, where employees may prefer to work through a short shift without taking a break, or retail, where scheduling demands can vary day to day.

2. No Daily Consent Required

The ruling eliminates the need for employers to secure a new waiver for each shift. A single, standing waiver that complies with legal requirements is sufficient, streamlining administrative processes and reducing paperwork. However, employers must ensure that employees are aware of their right to revoke the waiver at any time.

3. Importance of Clear Documentation

To minimize legal risks, employers should prioritize clear documentation of meal break waivers. Waivers should be:

    •    Clearly worded to avoid ambiguity about the scope and revocability of the waiver.

    •    Signed by the employee to demonstrate voluntary consent.

    •    Tracked to ensure that revocations are promptly honored.

Additionally, employers should train managers to respect employees’ rights to refuse or revoke waivers without fear of retaliation. A culture of transparency and respect for employee choice is critical to maintaining compliance.

4. Limitations for Longer Shifts

The Bradsbery ruling applies only to short shifts (five to six hours). For shifts exceeding six hours, employers must adhere to stricter requirements, including:

    •    Providing a second meal period for shifts over ten hours.

    •    Obtaining written agreements for any waivers of second meal periods.

    •    Ensuring compliance with on-duty meal period rules, where applicable (e.g., in certain industries where employees must remain on-site during breaks).

Employers should review their scheduling practices to ensure compliance with these additional safeguards for longer shifts.

Practical Steps for Implementing Meal Break Waivers

To take full advantage of the Bradsbery ruling, employers should adopt the following best practices when implementing meal period waivers:

    1    Draft Clear and Compliant Waivers

Work with legal counsel to create written waivers that explicitly state:

    ◦    The waiver applies to shifts of six hours or less.

    ◦    The waiver is voluntary and can be revoked at any time.

    ◦    The employee understands their right to a meal break and is choosing to waive it.

    2    Avoid vague or overly broad language that could be interpreted as coercive or unclear.

    3    Incorporate Waivers into Onboarding

Include meal break waivers as part of the new hire documentation process. This ensures that employees are aware of the option to waive meal breaks from the outset and allows employers to establish a consistent practice.

    4    Train Managers and HR Staff

Provide training to managers and HR personnel on the proper use of meal break waivers. Key topics should include:

    ◦    How to explain waivers to employees without pressuring them to sign.

    ◦    The process for handling waiver revocations promptly and respectfully.

    ◦    The importance of avoiding retaliation against employees who choose not to waive their meal breaks.

    5    Maintain Accurate Records

Keep detailed records of all signed waivers and any revocation requests. This documentation can serve as evidence of compliance in the event of a wage and hour dispute or audit by the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE).

    6    Monitor Compliance Regularly

Conduct periodic audits of scheduling and waiver practices to ensure ongoing compliance with Labor Code section 512 and Wage Orders. Address any discrepancies promptly to avoid potential liability.

The Broader Context: California’s Meal Break Laws

To fully appreciate the significance of the Bradsbery ruling, it’s helpful to understand the broader context of California’s meal break laws. California has some of the most stringent wage and hour regulations in the United States, designed to protect employees while imposing significant compliance burdens on employers.

Labor Code Section 512

Labor Code section 512 mandates that employers provide a 30-minute, uninterrupted meal period for employees working shifts longer than five hours. For shifts exceeding ten hours, a second meal period is required. Employees must be relieved of all duties during the meal break, and the break must be taken off-site unless an on-duty meal period is agreed upon in writing.

IWC Wage Orders

The Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) issues Wage Orders that provide industry-specific regulations for wages, hours, and working conditions. Wage Orders 4 and 5, which apply to professional and technical occupations and certain healthcare settings, respectively, include provisions for meal breaks and waivers. These orders allow employees to waive their first meal period for shifts of six hours or less, provided the waiver is voluntary and mutually agreed upon.

The Brinker Precedent

The 2012 Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court case is a cornerstone of California’s meal break jurisprudence. The California Supreme Court in Brinker clarified that employers must provide meal breaks but are not obligated to ensure that employees take them. This distinction shifted the focus to employer policies and documentation, setting the stage for cases like Bradsbery to address waiver practices.

Challenges for Employers

California’s meal break laws have historically posed challenges for employers, particularly in industries with flexible or unpredictable scheduling. Non-compliance can result in costly penalties, including premium pay (one hour of pay at the employee’s regular rate for each missed meal break) and potential class action lawsuits. The Bradsbery ruling alleviates some of these concerns by validating prospective waivers, but employers must remain vigilant to avoid missteps.

Benefits of the Bradsbery Ruling for Employers and Employees

The Bradsbery decision strikes a balance between employer flexibility and employee rights, offering benefits for both parties:

For Employers

    •    Simplified Scheduling: Prospective waivers reduce the administrative burden of securing daily consent, allowing employers to plan schedules more efficiently.

    •    Reduced Legal Risk: Properly implemented waivers provide a strong defense against meal break violation claims, minimizing exposure to penalties and litigation.

    •    Industry-Specific Advantages: Sectors like healthcare, retail, and professional services can tailor scheduling to operational needs without compromising compliance.

For Employees

    •    Increased Flexibility: Employees who prefer to work through short shifts without a break can do so without bureaucratic hurdles.

    •    Protected Rights: The requirement that waivers be voluntary and revocable ensures that employees retain control over their break preferences.

    •    Clarity and Transparency: Written waivers provide clear documentation of employee choices, reducing the risk of misunderstandings with employers.

Potential Pitfalls and How to Avoid Them

While the Bradsbery ruling is a positive development, employers must exercise caution to avoid common pitfalls:

    1    Coercion or Pressure

Any perception that employees are being pressured to sign waivers could undermine their validity. Employers should emphasize that waivers are optional and that refusing to sign will not result in adverse consequences.

    2    Failure to Honor Revocations

If an employee revokes a waiver, employers must promptly update their records and ensure that meal breaks are provided as required. Failure to do so could lead to labor law violations.

    3    Overapplication to Longer Shifts

Applying waivers to shifts longer than six hours without proper agreements violates Labor Code and Wage Order requirements. Employers should segregate waiver policies by shift length to avoid confusion.

    4    Inadequate Training

Managers who are not trained on waiver protocols may inadvertently violate employee rights or fail to document waivers properly. Regular training is essential to maintain compliance.

Conclusion

The Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, Inc. ruling is a game-changer for California employers, offering clarity and flexibility in the use of prospective meal break waivers for short shifts. By affirming the legality of voluntary, revocable, written waivers, the California Court of Appeal has provided a practical solution for businesses seeking to balance compliance with operational efficiency. For industries like healthcare, retail, and professional services, this decision is particularly impactful, enabling employers to streamline scheduling while respecting employee rights.

To capitalize on this ruling, employers should act swiftly to review and update their meal break waiver policies. By drafting clear waivers, training staff, and maintaining accurate records, businesses can reduce legal risks and foster a workplace culture that prioritizes both compliance and employee choice. As California’s employment laws continue to evolve, staying informed and proactive is the key to success.