Compliance Stuff

On April 21, 2025, the California Court of Appeal issued a significant ruling in favor of employers. In  Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating , the c ourt held that revocable meal period waivers prospectively signed by employees are enforceable, unless the waivers are unconscionable or unduly coercive. The plaintiffs in  Bradsbery  alleged that t heir employer failed to provide them with meal periods as required by law, despite their signing revocable written agreements prospectively waiving their 30-minute meal period for work shifts between five and six hours. The waiver 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 employer argued that the waivers were valid because “neith...

The ruling in  Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, Inc.  confirms that such waivers are enforceable under California Labor Code section 512 and the relevant Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Orders, provided certain conditions are met.  Bradsbery  provides much-needed guidance for employers regarding meal period waivers and offers a clear path for compliance. Background The case arose from a class action filed by former employees of a veterinary hospital network who alleged their employer failed to provide required meal periods for shifts between five and six hours . The employer defended the claims by pointing to signed written waivers it has obtained from employees that prospectively waived the right to a meal period on qualifying shifts and also allowed employees to revoke the waiver at any time. The trial court granted summary adjudication in favor of the employer, finding the waivers valid. The employees appealed, arguing that prospective, written waivers are n...