Workers who have freely and knowingly signed agreements waiving their rights under California labor law to 30-minute meal breaks cannot turn around and sue their employers for making them work without meal breaks, a California state appeals panel has ruled.
On April 21, a three-justice panel of the California Second District Court of Appeal sided with the company that operates animal hospital chain VCA in a long-running legal dispute with employees in Los Angeles, in which VCA was accused of violating California labor law.
According to court records, attorneys from the firm of Capstone Law, of L.A., filed a class action suit in 2014 against VCA's parent company, Vicar Operating Inc., in Los Angeles County Superior Court.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of named plaintiffs, former VCA employees La Kimba Bradsbery and Cheri Brakensiek. The plaintiffs sought to expand the lawsuit to include everyone who worked for VCA in California as a veterinary assistant, veterinary techician, surgery technician, kennel technician and customer service representative, among other jobs.
According to court documents, Bradsberry worked for VCA as a vet tech from 2008-2011, while Brakensiek worked as vet assistant and vet tech from 2004-2011.
The lawsuit specifically accused VCA of allegedly forcing those employees to work through their meal break periods.
Under California law, workers are granted the right to an unpaid 30-minute meal break when they work 5 hours or more in a shift.
VCA responded by pointing out the workers in 2009 had signed a "written meal period waiver" with the company, under which the workers appeared to "voluntarily waive" their rights to meal breaks when they worked six hours or less.
VCA said Brakensiek also "signed a second identical meal period waiver in 2011."
In court, the workers acknowledged signing the waivers.
However, they argued the waivers are not enforceable, as they said the waivers themselves violated California labor law. They specifically pointed to so-called wage orders from the state's Industrial Welfare Commission, which they said should disallow the waivers.
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Amy D. Hogue sided with VCA in the dispute, saying employers can use such waivers to defend themselves against claims that they had illegally required workers to work through meal breaks.
The workers appealed, but found a similar reception from the appellate court.
The appellate justices said they believed, so long as workers were not "coerced" into signing the waivers, or misled into signing the waivers "unknowingly," then the waivers don't conflict with California law.
"Plaintiffs aver prospective waivers permit employers to circumvent the statutory meal break requirements and deny employees a meaningful opportunity to exercise their right to meal breaks," the justices wrote. "The text and legislative and administrative history do not support these arguments.
"Further, 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."
The decision was authored by Justice Gonzalo Martinez. Justices Gail Ruderman Feuer and Natalie P. Stone concurred in the ruling.
VCA, through Vicar, was represented by attorneys Gary M. McLaughlin and Corey G. Singer, of the firm of Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp, of Los Angeles.
Plaintiffs were represented by attorneys Melissa Grant and John E. Stobart, of Capstone Law.