In a favorable decision for California employers, the Court of Appeal in Bradsbery et al. v. Vicar Operating, Inc., 110 Cal.App.5th 899, affirmed that employers and employees can enter into prospective, written, and revocable agreements to waive meal periods for shifts between five and six hours.[1] This ruling confirms what employers have long known regarding the legality of these agreements.

The Background

La Kimba Bradsbery and Cheri Brakensiek, former employees of Vicar Operating, Inc., filed a class action in Los Angeles County Superior Court alleging that Vicar violated California’s meal period laws by failing to provide meal periods. Vicar asserted that Plaintiffs signed advance, written waivers, prospectively waiving all meal periods for shifts less than six hours throughout Plaintiffs’ employment with Vicar. The agreement provided that Plaintiffs could revoke the agreement at any time. Vicar moved for summary adjudication regarding the validity of the waiver under Labor Code section 512 and Wage Orders Nos. 4 and 5. The trial court granted summary adjudication in favor of Vicar, finding the waivers lawful. Plaintiffs appealed (id. at *5–6).

The Legal Question and Court’s Decision

The key issue was whether California law allows a meal period waiver to be agreed upon in advance, in writing, for shifts between five and six hours. (id. at *2). Under Labor Code section 512(a) and IWC Wage Orders Nos. 4 and 5, employees who work more than five hours are entitled to a meal period, but that meal period may be waived by mutual consent if the shift does not exceed six hours. The statute and wage orders are silent on the timing or form of the waiver.

Relying on the legislative and administrative history for the statute and Wage Orders, the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s decision, finding the waivers lawful, and highlighted several key points:

• Text and History Support Prospective Waivers: The Court found that legislative and administrative history did not reflect an intent to prohibit prospective written waivers of meal periods. The Court found that that the IWC viewed written waivers as protective of employees’ rights as long as they were voluntary and revocable.
• No Evidence of Coercion or Unconscionability: Plaintiffs did not argue, nor was there evidence, that the waivers were coerced, signed under duress, or that employees were discouraged from taking meal periods. The waivers were voluntary and revocable at any time (id. at *25).
• Brinker Decision Not Controlling on This Issue: The Court rejected plaintiffs’ reliance on Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (2012) explaining that Brinker addressed an employer’s duty to provide meal periods, not the timing or form of a waiver.
• DLSE Opinion Letter Inapplicable: The Court found that a DLSE opinion letter dated August 13, 2003, addressing “Meal Periods Under IWC Order No. 14-2001” did not apply. The 2003 Letter disapproved of blanket waivers of meal periods and said the decision to forego a meal period must be made by each worker on a daily basis. The Court rejected the applicability of the letter, finding that the letter was not controlling, and finding it did not even carry “interpretive weight” because it interpreted a different, outdated, standard from Wage Orders Nos. 4 and 5. It also did not consider the same industry.

What This Means for Employers

This ruling confirms that California employers may utilize advance written waivers for meal periods in shifts of five to six hours as long as the waivers are mutual, voluntary, and revocable at the employee’s discretion. Employers that have been doing daily waivers may want to consider the administratively less-burdensome advanced waiver. Additionally, employers that already have such waivers in place should check their policies and practices to ensure (1) waivers are clearly written, voluntary, and signed by the employee, (2) employees are informed of their right to revoke the waiver at any time, and (3) employees are never pressured or coerced into signing or maintaining a waiver.

FOOTNOTES

[1] On July 16, 2025, the California Supreme Court denied review of the decision.