Can our new hires sign one-time blanket meal break waivers, or does the employee need to sign a written waiver each time he or she waives a meal break?
In a significant win for employers, the California Court of Appeal recently ruled that blanket meal waivers signed by nonexempt employees are permissible for shifts between 5 and 6 hours, if certain conditions are met.
Meal Breaks and Meal Waivers
Under California Labor Code Section 512, an employer is required to provide a 30-minute, off duty meal period for employees who work more than 5 hours and a second 30-minute meal period for shifts of 10 hours or more.
However, the law allows the employer and employee to mutually agree to waive the meal break so long as the employee works no more than 6 hours. An employee also may waive a second meal break under certain conditions.
California employers commonly ask new hires to sign blanket or “prospective” meal break waivers during the onboarding process. Before a recent Court of Appeal decision, it was unclear whether this practice of obtaining one-time waivers was permissible or whether a waiver had to be obtained from an employee each time he or she waived a meal break.
Court Decision
In Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, Inc., No. B322799 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 21, 2025), the plaintiffs sued their former employer, claiming they were denied meal breaks as required by Labor Code Section 512 and the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Orders 4 and 5 (applicable to the employees in this case).
The employer argued that the employees had voluntarily signed written blanket meal period waivers early in their employment. The waivers read:
“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 plaintiffs argued that the blanket meal waivers they signed were not enforceable because they were not signed on a per-shift basis. Both the trial court and Court of Appeal rejected the plaintiff’s arguments.
The Court of Appeal held that prospective meal break waivers signed by employees are enforceable, provided the waivers are not “unconscionable or unduly coercive.” The court made it clear that it would have “serious reservations” about a waiver if there was evidence that the employee signed the waiver unknowingly or under coercion, or if the waiver could not be freely revoked at any time.
It is important to note that this case addresses only waivers for the first meal break under Labor Code Section 512 and IWC Wage Orders 4 and 5 and did not address second meal break waivers.
Guidance for Implementing Meal Waivers
The court’s decision provides some welcome guidance for employers on the use of prospective meal break waivers:
• Implement a written meal break waiver. In this case, the court upheld a written prospective meal waiver. Although not required by law, it is best practice to have a blanket meal break waiver in writing.
• Meal waivers should be clearly written and communicated. Meal break waivers should be clearly written. They should state that signing is voluntary, and that the waiver can be revoked at any time. The waiver also should include language explaining what the employee must do to revoke a waiver. If a waiver is given to employees during onboarding, the waiver should be highlighted and discussed. Employers should encourage employees to ask any questions they may have about the meal waiver, to ensure that employees fully understand what they are signing.
• Do not force employees to sign meal break waivers. Mutual consent is required for a meal break waiver to be valid. Employers must not pressure or coerce employees into signing meal waivers. In addition, employers must not retaliate against an employee who exercises his or her right not to sign a meal waiver or to revoke a meal waiver.
Employers considering using blanket meal period waivers should consult with legal counsel to understand how this court decision affects its specific industry and circumstances, and to ensure compliance with the Labor Code and applicable wage orders.
Column based on questions asked by callers on the Labor Law Helpline, a service to California Chamber of Commerce preferred members and above. For expert explanations of labor laws and Cal/OSHA regulations, not legal counsel for specific situations, call (800) 348-2262 or submit your question at www.hrcalifornia.com.
