Mediator’s Minute: Confirmed! Evergreen Meal Period Waivers Are Permissible

Employers have long argued the enforceability of so-called evergreen meal period waivers in California.  A recent ruling by the California Court of Appeal in the Second Appellate District addressed the narrow issue of whether an employer and employee may lawfully agree in writing to a prospective, revocable meal period waiver for shifts between five and six hours.  In short, the Court in Bradsbery et al. v. Vicar Operating, Inc., 110 Cal.App.5th 899 (2025), said yes.

Starting with the Exceptions

The Court began by detailing facts that were not present, citing the fact that the plaintiffs in this case were not arguing that they were coerced, that the waiver itself exerted pressure on them to skip meal breaks, that the waivers were irrevocable, or that the plaintiffs did not know what they were agreeing to when they signed the waivers at issue.  Boiling the double negatives down: this was a clean question to the Court of Appeal regarding the validity of evergreen or prospective meal period waivers in light of the Labor Code’s requirement that employees receive a duty-free half hour meal period for every five hours worked. See Cal. Lab. Code § 512.

The Court explicitly provided the following caveat: “Plaintiffs do not argue the waivers are unconscionable or that they impede or discourage workers from taking meal breaks. Nor do Plaintiffs argue that they unknowingly signed the waivers, that Vicar coerced them into signing the waivers because it had greater bargaining power, or that they could not freely revoke the waivers at any time. While we would hesitate to uphold a prospective written waiver under such circumstances, this case does not present them.” Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, Inc., p.3 (citations to pages in pdf of original slip opinion available at https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2025/b322799.html).

The Court reiterated in its holding that it was affirming the lower court’s ruling upholding the waivers “in the absence of any evidence the waivers are unconscionable or unduly coercive.”  Id.

Notably, the meal period waiver also required that the employee revoke the waiver “by giving written revocation” to the employee’s manager.  Id. at p.4.

The History of Meal Period Waivers in California Wage Orders

This decision also included a lengthy and detailed analysis of the legislative history in section C.(2) of the opinion, which walks through the evolution of meal period waivers in the wage orders and some of the reasoning behind the requirement that on-duty meal periods be agreed to in writing.  The Court highlighted the fact that employee representatives had asked for the ability to waive certain meal periods and that the drafters believed that written waivers were protective of both the employee and the employer.  Id. at p.16.

Fun fact: The first provisions in wage orders 4 and 5 permitting meal period waivers were introduced by the Industrial Wage Commission (IWC) in 1952!  Id. at p.15. 

The key takeaway here is that “evergreen” prospective meal period waivers are permissible in certain circumstances.  However, the Court was careful to explain that its holding was narrow in scope and that indications of unknowing or coercive waiver could yield a different conclusion.

Shireen Wetmore is a mediator specializing in employment matters and can be reached for questions, comment, or booking at www.shireenwetmoremediation.com.  

This Mediator’s Minute is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.