California Court of Appeal Holds That Prospective Meal Waivers for Shifts Between Five and Six Hours are Enforceable

In a surprisingly employer-friendly decision, the California Court of Appeal recently held that voluntary, prospective written meal waivers for shorter shifts, i.e., those that are more than five but no more than six hours in total, are valid and enforceable.

In Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, Inc., the Court of Appeal held that revocable, prospective meal waivers for shorter shifts are enforceable in the absence of any evidence the waivers are unconscionable or unduly coercive.

Case Background

Plaintiffs, former veterinary assistants and technicians, filed a putative class action in July 2014 against their former employer, Vicar Operating.  Plaintiffs alleged in part that Vicar Operating had violated Labor Code section 512(a) by requiring Plaintiffs and putative class members to work shifts between five and six hours without a meal period and without waiving their right to a meal period by mutual consent.  Plaintiffs argued that as a result, Vicar owed Plaintiffs and the putative class members premiums for missed meal periods.

The Lower Court’s Take

The trial court granted Vicar’s motion for summary adjudication on the section 512 claim, determining that the plain language of section 512 and IWC Wage Order Nos. 4 and 5 permitted prospective blanket meal period waivers.  Plaintiffs appealed.

The Court of Appeal’s Decision

The Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court’s ruling.  Analyzing the phrase “waived by mutual consent” in section 512 and the two wage orders in the context of the history and purpose behind them, the Court of Appeal determined that section 512 and the wage orders do not reflect a legislative intent to prohibit prospective written waivers of meal periods, even when an employee has not yet worked a shift entitling them to meal periods.  The Court noted that the IWC instituted the written agreement requirement for waiver of off-duty meal periods as a protective measure benefiting both employees and employers.  Written waivers protect employees’ interests, since they are revocable and promote “freedom of choice,” and protect employers in the event of an employee complaint, since they provide proof the employee waived their meal periods.

The Court reasoned that since the wage orders expressly authorized written waivers to protect employees’ right to a meal period in vulnerable circumstances (e.g., during work shifts longer than eight hours and jobs where the employee could not take an off-duty meal, such as jobs in the health care industry), it follows that there was no legislative intent to prohibit a written waiver in less vulnerable circumstances, such as during shorter shifts.  Also, the Court found that the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement’s (“DLSE”) opinion letter addressing “Meal Periods Under IWC Order 14-2001,” which prohibits blanket waivers, did not apply here, as that letter interprets a standard different from the wage orders that is no longer in effect and only applies to “all persons employed in an agricultural occupation.”

However, the Court was careful to limit its holding to meal period waivers that (1) were not unconscionable, (2) did not have the effect of impeding or discouraging workers from taking the meal periods to which they are entitled (citing Brinker v. Superior Court, discussed here and here), (3) were not signed via coercion, and (4) were revocable.  Waivers falling into one of those categories would give the Court “serious reservations” regarding their validity. 

Takeaways

Prospective meal period waivers for meal periods during shifts that are five to no more than six hours are valid, barring any unconscionability or undue coercion.  As a best practice, employers should ensure that meal period waivers are in writing and include language indicating they are voluntary and revocable.