In win for employers, the California Court of Appeal ruled prospective meal break waivers can be permissible

What is a “blanket” or “prospective” meal period waiver?

California employers can offer non-exempt employees the opportunity to (1) waive their first meal period if their work period does not exceed six hours or (2) waive their second meal period when their workday lands between 10 and 12 hours and did not waive their first meal break. Often times, this written waiver is not handed out at each qualifying shift, but instead during onboarding or in a roll-out during a worker’s employment.

Workers have argued that “blanket” meal break waivers were impermissible. That is, until the Court of Appeal’s April 21 decision in Bradsbery, which makes clear that prospective meal period waivers are permissible, in specific and limited conditions.

Bradsbery

In Bradsbery, the plaintiffs filed a putative class action alleging their employer Vicar Operating, Inc. violated the California Labor Code governing meal breaks, by requiring plaintiffs and putative class members to work shifts between five and six hours without a meal period and without “waiv[ing] their legally mandated meal periods by mutual consent.” The complaint alleged Vicar owed the plaintiffs and class members premiums for missed meal periods.

Vicar filed a motion for summary adjudication to determine whether Vicar’s “blanket” meal period waivers to prospectively waive meal periods on qualifying shifts were enforceable under California law. The trial court granted Vicar’s motion for summary adjudication. The plaintiffs appealed.

Vicar argued that each of the Plaintiffs signed written meal period waivers that prospectively waived all waivable meal periods throughout the plaintiffs’ employment with Vicar. The waiver stated it was “voluntary” and “revocable” at any time. In other words, the meal waivers were not signed prior to each and every shift they waived their meal period, but instead, ahead of time. The plaintiffs argued that “blanket” written meal period waivers were not permissible.

The Court of Appeal held that the plaintiffs’ revocable, prospective waivers of their 30-minute meal period for shifts between five to six hours were valid and enforceable, in the absence of any evidence the waivers were unconscionable or unduly coercive.

This is a great win for California employers. But of course, applies in limited circumstances.

Characteristics of Enforceable Prospective Meal Period Waivers

The Court of Appeal found the prospective meal period waivers were enforceable because they were:

• Written
• Revocable by employees at any time, and
• Employees could revoke or decline to sign a waiver without fear of retaliation.

Watch Out: Characteristics That May Render  Prospective Meal Period Waivers Unenforceable

The Court of Appeal pointed out that it may have reached a different result if the plaintiffs argued the waivers:

• Were unconscionable
• Were not freely revocable at any time
• Impeded or discouraged workers from taking meal breaks
• That the workers unknowingly signed the waivers or
• That their employer coerced them into signing the waivers because it had greater bargaining power.

The Court of Appeal made clear it would “hesitate to uphold a prospective written waiver under such circumstances.”

If you have any questions about the Bradsbery ruling, or how to implement enforceable meal period waivers in your workplace, contact Monique Eginli (meginli@clarkhill.com) or another member of Clark Hill, LLP’s California Labor and Employment Practice Group.

This publication is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services. The information in this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel. The views and opinions expressed herein represent those of the individual author only and are not necessarily the views of Clark Hill PLC. Although we attempt to ensure that postings on our website are complete, accurate, and up to date, we assume no responsibility for their completeness, accuracy, or timeliness.