In a ruling that clarifies a previously unsettled area of California employment law, a California Court of Appeal affirmed the enforceability of written, prospective meal period waivers for shifts between five and six hours long. The April 21, 2025 decision in Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, Inc. explained that advanced “blanket” waivers are valid under the law if freely revocable and absent evidence of coercion or unconscionability. For California employers, Bradsbery provides much-needed guidance on how to properly implement meal period waivers in compliance with the law.

The Legal Context

Under California Labor Code Section 512, employees are entitled to a 30-minute duty-free meal period after five hours of work. The law permits employees to waive this meal period for shifts no longer than six hours if the waiver is made by mutual consent.

The issue in Bradsbery was whether this mutual consent could be documented in a standing, written waiver signed at the outset of employment, referred to as a “blanket” or “prospective” waiver, rather than being obtained anew for each qualifying shift.

The Case

Plaintiffs La Kimba Bradsbery and Cheri Brakensiek filed a class action against their former employer, Vicar Operating, Inc., alleging they were improperly denied meal periods. In its defense, Vicar relied on written agreements, voluntarily signed by both employees, which waived meal periods on shifts of six hours or less.

The trial court found for Vicar, stating that such waivers are enforceable in the absence of evidence of unconscionability or coercion. On appeal, the plaintiffs argued that allowing these prospective, “blanket” waivers undermines the protective intent of California’s meal period laws and should be found invalid and unenforceable.

The Ruling in Bradsbery

Upholding the lower court’s decision, the court explained that because the law is silent as to when or how a meal period waiver must be executed, employers may use prospective, written waivers unless such waivers are proven to be coercive or unconscionable.

In reviewing the plaintiffs’ signed agreements with Vicar, the court found no evidence of coercion or unconscionability, noting that the written waivers were revocable at any time, and there was no evidence that the employees unknowingly signed the waivers or that Vicar coerced them into signing the waivers because it had greater bargaining power. Moreover, the plaintiffs produced no evidence that Vicar discouraged employees from taking meal periods or from revoking the waivers, which the court clarified might lead to a different result in future cases where evidence of duress or a lack of informed consent exists.

Why Does This Matter to California Employers?

For California employers, the Bradsbery decision provides long-awaited confirmation that prospective meal period waivers are enforceable. However, Bradsbery also provides important insight into what California courts will consider when analyzing the enforceability of such waivers.

In light of this decision, California employers should review their current policies and agreements related to meal period waivers for compliance with the following best practices.

1. The agreement must explicitly state that employees are free to refuse to sign or to revoke the waiver at any time after signing without fear of retaliation.
2. For long-term employees, consider revisiting the agreement periodically and reminding employees of the terms and conditions of the waiver, including the revocation provision.
3. For new employees, ensure that employees understand that it is their choice to waive meal breaks and that employees understand the scope of what the waiver covers.
4. Monitor and document usage to ensure that waivers are only applied when employees work a shift of less than six hours. California employers should also consider documenting any instances of revocation to show that employees are free to refuse or revoke the waiver without retaliation.
5. Make sure waivers are clear and distinct, not buried in a long document, printed in small type, or worded confusingly – in other words, the kind of things California courts examine when asked to determine unconscionability.

It is crucial that all supervisors and managers understand the scope of these waivers and they should be provided training on how to assist employees who seek to revoke these waivers and how to engage with employees who have waived their meal periods. Contact your local Squire Patton Boggs attorney for assistance with reviewing your meal break waiver procedures for compliance with California law.