In a surprisingly employer-friendly decision, the California Court of Appeal recently held that voluntary, prospective written meal waivers for shorter shifts, i.e., those that are more than five but no more than six hours in total, are valid and enforceable. In Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, Inc., the Court of Appeal held that revocable, prospective meal waivers for shorter shifts are enforceable in the absence of any evidence the waivers are unconscionable or unduly coercive.
Case Background
Plaintiffs, former veterinary assistants and technicians, filed a putative class action in July 2014 against their former employer, Vicar Operating. Plaintiffs alleged in part that Vicar Operating had violated Labor Code section 512(a) by requiring Plaintiffs and putative class members to work shifts between five and six hours without a meal period and without waiving their right to a meal period by mutual consent. Plaintiffs argued that as a result, Vicar owed Plaintiffs and the putative class members premiums for missed meal periods.
Almost four years ago, we wrote about how a California Court of Appeal’s decision exposed health care employers to litigation if they relied upon IWC Wage Order 5 for meal period waivers. That decision was Gerard v. Orange Coast Memorial Medical Center (“Gerard I”), where the Court of Appeal concluded that IWC Wage Order 5 was partially invalid to the extent it authorized second meal period waivers on shifts over 12 hours.
Last year, we wrote about how the California Court of Appeal in Gerard II reversed its previous decision after the Legislature enacted SB 327 shortly after ...
A little more than two years ago, we wrote about how a California Court of Appeal’s decision exposed health care employers to litigation if they relied upon IWC Wage Order 5 for meal period waivers. That decision was Gerard v. Orange Coast Memorial Medical Center (“Gerard I”), where the Court of Appeal concluded that IWC Wage Order 5 was partially invalid to the extent it authorized second meal period waivers on shifts over 12 hours. Much has happened since then.
After Gerard I was published, the Legislature moved quickly to enact SB 327, which amended Labor Code section 516 to state ...
Employers in California – and healthcare employers in particular – have been besieged by wage-hour class actions for more than a decade. They have been sued repeatedly on claims that they have not complied with the terms of Industrial Welfare Commission (“IWC”) Wage Orders. Now, as a result of a new decision from the California Court of Appeal, they may face lawsuits based not on a failure to comply with the language of a Wage Order, but because they in fact relied upon language in a Wage Order. It is a development that may lead many employers to throw up their hands and quote the old ...
Recent Updates
- Watch: Change Is Coming from the EEOC—but When? - Employment Law This Week
- The EEOC Moves to End EEO Reporting – Comments Invited Through August 24
- Watch: New York Employers Face New Restrictions on Severance, Tuition Repayment, and Sick Time - Employment Law This Week
- Attention Connecticut Warehouse Employers: Deadline for New Quota Notices Approaching
- New Jersey Department of Labor’s Guidance Clarifies Expanded Job Protected Leave Rights for Employees