In a significant win for employers, the California Court of Appeal recently affirmed that prospective, revocable meal period waivers for shifts between five and six hours are lawful under both the Labor Code and applicable Wage Orders. The decision in Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, Inc. (B322799, April 21, 2025) clarifies that employers may obtain – in advance – written waivers from employees who voluntarily choose to skip a meal break on short shifts. California employers who routinely include these waivers with new hire documentation now have the approval of the California Court of Appeal.

This ruling provides welcome certainty for employers managing flexible scheduling, particularly in industries like healthcare, retail, and professional services where short shifts are common.

Background

The plaintiffs in Bradsbery were former employees of a veterinary hospital who sued their employer, Vicar Operating, Inc., for allegedly failing to provide meal breaks as required by Labor Code section 512 and the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders 4 and 5. Vicar defended the claims by pointing to written meal period waivers signed by the plaintiffs early in their employment – a common practice used by California employers. The waivers expressly stated that employees voluntarily waived their meal break for shifts of six hours or less and that the waiver could be revoked at any time.

The plaintiffs argued that such prospective or “blanket” waivers were not legally valid and that a meal break could only be waived on a shift-by-shift basis, after an employee knew their exact hours.

The Court’s Ruling

The Court of Appeal rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments, finding:

• Nothing in the text of Labor Code section 512 or Wage Orders 4 and 5 prohibits a prospective waiver of the first meal period for shifts of five to six hours.
• The ability to waive that meal period by mutual consent is sufficient, and there is no requirement that the consent be given on a daily or shift-specific basis.
• Written, revocable waivers — like those used by Vicar — are consistent with both legislative intent and the historical practice of the IWC, which has recognized written waivers as protective of employee choice and employer clarity.
• The waivers at issue were not coerced, and the employees had the ability to revoke them at any time.

Importantly, the court distinguished this case from Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004, emphasizing that Brinker addressed when meal periods must be provided, not how or when they may be waived.

Takeaways for Employers

1. Prospective Written Waivers Are Permissible for Short Shifts

Employers may ask employees to sign advance written waivers of meal periods for shifts between five and six hours, so long as:

• The waiver is voluntary;
• It is revocable at any time; and
• It applies only to shifts of six hours or less.

2. No Daily Consent Needed

Employers are not required to secure a fresh waiver each day. A standing waiver that complies with the law and can be withdrawn at will is sufficient.

3. Clear Documentation Still Matters

To reduce risk, waivers should be clearly worded, signed, and tracked. Train managers to honor any revocation promptly and to avoid retaliating against an employee exercising his or her right to refuse to sign or revoke a waiver.

4. Longer Shifts Still Require Additional Safeguards

This case only addresses short shifts. For shifts over six (or twelve) hours, different rules apply, including requirements for written agreements and second meal periods.

Conclusion

The Bradsbery ruling is a practical decision that supports scheduling flexibility while respecting employee rights. Employers who use properly drafted, revocable meal period waivers for short shifts can feel confident their policies are compliant — provided they implement them carefully and consistently.

If your business uses meal period waivers or has questions about wage and hour compliance, the employment law group at Hanson Bridgett is available to assist with compliant policy design and practical implementation.