In a case of first impression, Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, Inc., the California Court of Appeal held that a prospective, written waiver of meal periods for work shifts between five and six hours is enforceable. In other words, forward-looking “blanket” written waivers are valid in the absence of any evidence of coercion or unconscionability. This recent decision holds significant implications for employers, especially as to how employers can use meal break waivers in their businesses.
Case Background
The plaintiffs, La Kimba Bradsbery and Cheri Brakensiek, former employees of Vicar Operating, Inc. (“Vicar”), a veterinary hospital operator, filed a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Orders. Vicar operates a network of veterinary hospitals, where Bradsbery worked as a veterinary technician and Brakensiek as a veterinary assistant and technician. In April 2009, each plaintiff signed a written waiver of their meal periods for shifts of six hours or less that was revocable at any time by giving a “written revocation” to a manager. Vicar considered this waiver valid under Labor Code section 512, which states a meal period may be waived by “mutual consent of both the employer and employee” if the employee’s shift is no more than six hours.
The plaintiffs argued that Vicar’s conduct violated the statutory requirement for meal periods because, in their view, prospective waivers permit employers to...
Local News False claims about new government payments are circulating online, prompting a warning from the Canada Revenue Agency about disinformation tied to federal benefits. The agency says post...