On April 21, 2025, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, issued a pivotal ruling in Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, Inc. (No. B322799). The court held that employees may lawfully waive their right to a meal period for shifts of six hours or less through a prospective, written agreement—provided that the waiver is voluntary and revocable at any time.
Background of the Case
Plaintiffs La Kimba Bradsbery and Cheri Brakensiek, both former employees of Vicar Operating, Inc., filed a class action lawsuit alleging that Vicar failed to provide mandatory meal periods as required by California Labor Code section 512 and Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Orders Nos. 4 and 5. Vicar argued that the plaintiffs and Defendant had “waived by mutual consent” a 30-minute meal period in a written waiver in line with Section 512 and the two wage orders and that the prospective written nature of the waiver also aligned with the legislative scheme. These waivers, Vicar asserted, could be revoked at any time.
The waiver signed by Plaintiffs 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 trial court granted summary adjudication in favor of Vicar, finding that the prospective waivers complied with Section 512 and the relevant wage orders.
Court of Appeal’s Analysis
The appellate court focused on a narrow issue and one of first impression: whether the mutual waiver of that meal period by an employer and employee can occur prospectively and in writing.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s ruling, finding that a prospective waiver of a 30-minute meal period for shifts between five and six hours aligned with the text and intent of Section 512 and Wage Orders Nos. 4 and 5 and that Plaintiffs’ written waivers were enforceable. The court noted that evidence supported a finding that the waivers were both voluntary and revocable, and there was no evidence suggesting that they were unconscionable or unduly coercive.
Importantly, the court concluded that the legislative and administrative history supported the legality of such waivers and that the California Supreme Court’s decision in Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004 did not mandate a different outcome.
Implications for Employment Attorneys
For Plaintiff-Side Counsel:
- Evaluate Waiver Validity: Assess whether the waiver was truly voluntary and revocable. Consider the employee’s understanding of the waiver, any signs of coercion, and the clarity of the revocation process.
- Review Employer Practices: Ensure that the employer’s use of waivers does not serve as a mechanism to bypass legal obligations to provide meal periods.
For Defense-Side Counsel:
- Establish Clear Policies: Advise employers to implement standalone, written waivers that explicitly state they are voluntary and revocable. Ensure employees are fully informed about their rights and how to revoke the waiver.
- Maintain Robust Documentation: Encourage employers to retain records of signed waivers and any revocations to demonstrate compliance and support defense in potential litigation.
Conclusion
The Bradsbery decision provides important clarification on the enforceability of prospective meal period waivers for shifts of six hours or less. When entered into voluntarily and with the option to revoke, such waivers are valid under California law. Employment attorneys should counsel clients—both employers and employees—on implementing and reviewing waiver policies to ensure full legal compliance.