PRACTICAL INSIGHTS POST-BRADSBERY

By Jennifer S. Grock

In Bradsbery v. Vicar Operating, Inc., the Second Appellate District Court concluded that revocable, prospective meal period waivers are valid in the absence of any evidence that they are unconscionable or unduly coercive to the employees who signed them. In so ruling, the Bradsbery court offered insights regarding possible obstacles to the enforceability of such waivers—informing best practices going forward.

The trial court had granted Vicar’s motion for summary adjudication on grounds that the "blanket," prospective written meal period waivers signed by the plaintiffs were valid and the appellate court upheld that ruling.

Importantly, the Bradsbery opinion emphasizes that the plaintiffs did not argue that their meal period waivers were procedurally deficient or unconscionable. Had Vicar’s waivers included procedural or unconscionability issues, the appellate court noted it "would have serious reservations regarding the validity of prospective written waivers of meal periods under such circumstances." So, while Bradsbery affirms that employers can provide their employees with prospective, "blanket" meal period waivers, it also cautions employers to pay close attention to potential "red flags" associated with their waiver documentation and practices to avoid possible challenges.