© 2025 American Payroll Institute, Inc.
May 19, 2025 Volume 27 Issue 10
California Court Approves Prospective, Written Meal Waivers for Employees
A Court of Appeal in California approved written
agreements where employees waive their right to a meal
beak during a 5- to 6-hour shift [Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating,
Inc., No. B322799 (Cal. Ct. App., 4-21-25)]. The court reasoned
that the ability to waive meal breaks in advance gave
employees the right to choose between taking a meal break
and ending their workday earlier.
Employees waived right to meal breaks
In 2014, employees La Kimba Bradsbery and Cheri
Brakensiek sued their employer, Vicar Operating, Inc., on
behalf of a class of employees claiming that Vicar had failed
to provide them with their required meal periods. Vicar
operated a series of veterinary hospitals. Bradsbery worked
for Vicor as a veterinary technician from 2008 to 2011.
Brakensiek worked as a veterinary assistant and veterinary
technician from 2004 to 2011.
Vicar claimed that the employees had signed valid
agreements to waive their right to meal periods throughout
their employment. The waivers provided: “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 [5] 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 employees further claimed that the waiver allowed
Vicar to avoid providing employees with a meaningful
opportunity to exercise their right to meal breaks. The
employees did not argue that the waiver was unconscionable
or that Vicar discouraged employees from taking their breaks.
The trial court sided with Vicar, stating that the plain language
of the applicable laws permitted prospective waivers.
Court rules waivers are valid, protect employees
The Court of Appeal held that revocable, prospective
signed waivers were valid. Meal beaks are governed by
California Labor Code §512 and the California wage orders,
which have substantially similar language regarding waivers:
“Labor Code §512 guarantees a 30-minute, off-duty meal
period for employees after [5] work hours and a second meal
period after 10 work hours. [F]or shifts between 5 and 6 hours,
the first meal period ‘may be waived by mutual consent of
both the employer and employee.’”
The key issues in the case were the meaning of “waived
by mutual consent” and whether waivers are permitted in
advance and in writing. The labor code and the wage orders
are silent about the timing and form of the waiver. The law
also does not define the term “waived,” but the court read
the term to mean “the intentional relinquishment of a known
right after knowledge of the facts.”
The employees admitted that the language of §512 and
the wage orders are silent as to when an employee may waive
their right to a meal break. However, they argued that because
other wage orders expressly authorized prospective written
waivers that the lack of authorization in the applicable wage
order implied that it was not allowed under the employees’
circumstances.
Vicar’s argument focused on the language of the law
itself, and, since no restrictions are listed, it claimed that
prospective waivers are legal and employees can waive
their future meal periods. The court agreed that both the
employees’ and Vicar’s reading of the law was possible and
ruled that the language was ambiguous. Given this, the court
examined the history of state law and the wage orders for
guidance.
After examining the legislative history, the court ruled
that a prospective written waiver of a meal period is allowed.
The court focused its analysis on another wage order where
there were stricter requirements to waive a meal period. For
health care employees, a previous wage order required that
waivers of a meal period for a shift of 12 hours or more be in
writing and signed in advance.
The court noted that protecting the right to choose
whether to waive a meal period was more important in the
context of a shift of 12 hours or more. Given that the shifts at
issue in this case were 6 hours or less, the court did not see
why the analysis would differ.
Limitations
The court did note some important limitations to its
ruling. The waivers were not unconscionable, and Vicar did
not discourage employees from taking the meal breaks if they
had not signed a waiver. The waivers were also revokable, and
Vicar could not discriminate or take any other adverse action
against an employee for not signing a waiver. Last, the court
specifically limited its ruling to written waivers, leaving the
question of whether a prospective oral waiver is legal.
Maryland Paid Family and Medical Leave Program Delayed On May 6, the governor of Maryland signed legislation
delaying the implementation dates of the paid family and
medical leave (PFML) program until 2027 [H.B. 102, L. 2025].
Earlier this year, the Maryland Department of Labor (DOL)
announced a proposal to delay the implementation of the
PFML program again (see PAYSTATE UPDATE, Issue 5, Vol. 27).
May 19, 2025 Volume 27 Issue 10
California Court Approves Prospective, Written Meal Waivers for Employees
A Court of Appeal in California approved written
agreements where employees waive their right to a meal
beak during a 5- to 6-hour shift [Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating,
Inc., No. B322799 (Cal. Ct. App., 4-21-25)]. The court reasoned
that the ability to waive meal breaks in advance gave
employees the right to choose between taking a meal break
and ending their workday earlier.
Employees waived right to meal breaks
In 2014, employees La Kimba Bradsbery and Cheri
Brakensiek sued their employer, Vicar Operating, Inc., on
behalf of a class of employees claiming that Vicar had failed
to provide them with their required meal periods. Vicar
operated a series of veterinary hospitals. Bradsbery worked
for Vicor as a veterinary technician from 2008 to 2011.
Brakensiek worked as a veterinary assistant and veterinary
technician from 2004 to 2011.
Vicar claimed that the employees had signed valid
agreements to waive their right to meal periods throughout
their employment. The waivers provided: “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 [5] 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 employees further claimed that the waiver allowed
Vicar to avoid providing employees with a meaningful
opportunity to exercise their right to meal breaks. The
employees did not argue that the waiver was unconscionable
or that Vicar discouraged employees from taking their breaks.
The trial court sided with Vicar, stating that the plain language
of the applicable laws permitted prospective waivers.
Court rules waivers are valid, protect employees
The Court of Appeal held that revocable, prospective
signed waivers were valid. Meal beaks are governed by
California Labor Code §512 and the California wage orders,
which have substantially similar language regarding waivers:
“Labor Code §512 guarantees a 30-minute, off-duty meal
period for employees after [5] work hours and a second meal
period after 10 work hours. [F]or shifts between 5 and 6 hours,
the first meal period ‘may be waived by mutual consent of
both the employer and employee.’”
The key issues in the case were the meaning of “waived
by mutual consent” and whether waivers are permitted in
advance and in writing. The labor code and the wage orders
are silent about the timing and form of the waiver. The law
also does not define the term “waived,” but the court read
the term to mean “the intentional relinquishment of a known
right after knowledge of the facts.”
The employees admitted that the language of §512 and
the wage orders are silent as to when an employee may waive
their right to a meal break. However, they argued that because
other wage orders expressly authorized prospective written
waivers that the lack of authorization in the applicable wage
order implied that it was not allowed under the employees’
circumstances.
Vicar’s argument focused on the language of the law
itself, and, since no restrictions are listed, it claimed that
prospective waivers are legal and employees can waive
their future meal periods. The court agreed that both the
employees’ and Vicar’s reading of the law was possible and
ruled that the language was ambiguous. Given this, the court
examined the history of state law and the wage orders for
guidance.
After examining the legislative history, the court ruled
that a prospective written waiver of a meal period is allowed.
The court focused its analysis on another wage order where
there were stricter requirements to waive a meal period. For
health care employees, a previous wage order required that
waivers of a meal period for a shift of 12 hours or more be in
writing and signed in advance.
The court noted that protecting the right to choose
whether to waive a meal period was more important in the
context of a shift of 12 hours or more. Given that the shifts at
issue in this case were 6 hours or less, the court did not see
why the analysis would differ.
Limitations
The court did note some important limitations to its
ruling. The waivers were not unconscionable, and Vicar did
not discourage employees from taking the meal breaks if they
had not signed a waiver. The waivers were also revokable, and
Vicar could not discriminate or take any other adverse action
against an employee for not signing a waiver. Last, the court
specifically limited its ruling to written waivers, leaving the
question of whether a prospective oral waiver is legal.
Maryland Paid Family and Medical Leave Program Delayed On May 6, the governor of Maryland signed legislation
delaying the implementation dates of the paid family and
medical leave (PFML) program until 2027 [H.B. 102, L. 2025].
Earlier this year, the Maryland Department of Labor (DOL)
announced a proposal to delay the implementation of the
PFML program again (see PAYSTATE UPDATE, Issue 5, Vol. 27).
