New Meal Break Case, 5-7-25

I help California lawyers get excellent results several ways:

• I serve as a mediator, arbitrator and referee with ADR Services, Inc. 
• I publish California Case Summaries™ to help California attorneys win more cases by always knowing the new case law in their practice areas.
• In my Trial Alchemy™ podcast, I interview outstanding plaintiff and defense civil trial lawyers and civil trial judges who are ABOTA members to help lawyers to learn from civil jury trial experts. 

New CA Meal Break Case

Is a written prospective waiver of a meal break effective for shifts between five and six hours?

Last month, the California Court of Appeal decided this issue of first impression. Below is my one-paragraph summary of this new decision:

Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, Inc. (2025) __ Cal.App.5th __, 2025 WL 1155812: The Court of Appeal ruled on an issue of first impression regarding meal breaks. Can an effective mutual waiver by an employer and employee of the 30-minute meal period after five hours of work, occur prospectively and in writing pursuant to Labor Code Section 512, which provides that for shifts between five and six hours the first meal period may be waived by mutual consent of both the employer and employee? The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment in plaintiffs’ wage and hour action alleging that defendant failed to provide employees with the meal periods required by section 512 and IWC Wage Order Nos. 4-2001 (Wage Order No. 4) and 5-2001 (Wage Order No. 5). Defendant’s motion for summary judgment argued that plaintiffs signed a valid written agreement that prospectively waived all waivable meal periods throughout plaintiffs’ employment with defendant, and the agreement provided plaintiffs could revoke the agreement at any time. The trial court concluded the waivers were valid. The Court of Appeal agreed, concluding that the revocable, prospective waivers plaintiffs signed were enforceable in the absence of any evidence the waivers were unconscionable or unduly coercive, and Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004 does not require a contrary result. (C.A. 2nd, April 21, 2025.)

Mediation, Arbitration and Referee Services

I help attorneys and their clients throughout California as a mediator, arbitrator and referee at ADR Services, Inc. handling business, commercial, employment, insurance, probate, real property, and tort cases. As a civil trial lawyer since 1980 I've represented plaintiffs and defendants in these areas. I've been a member of the American Board of Trial Advocates (ABOTA) since 1995, I've tried over 100 civil cases including numerous civil jury trials, and I'm a past president of the San Diego County Bar Association and the San Diego Chapter of ABOTA. To schedule a new matter, please contact one of my case managers at ADR services, Inc.:
Haward Cho, [email protected], (213) 683-1600, or
Rachael Boughan, [email protected], (619) 233-1323

When you conduct a half-day or full-day private mediation or arbitration with me you'll get a free 3-month subscription (a $450 value) to my unique civil case summary publication California Case Summaries Monthly™.  

California Case Summaries™

Best regards,
Monty A. McIntyre, Esq.
Mediator, Arbitrator & Referee
Podcaster: Trial Alchemy™
Publisher: California Case Summaries™
ABOTA Member Since 1995
Past President: San Diego County Bar Assn.
Past President: SD ABOTA Chapter
Phone: (619) 990-4312. Email: [email protected]