CA · jury_instructions
CACI No. 2770
Affirmative Defense—Meal Breaks—Waiver by Mutual
Consent
[Name of defendant] claims that there was no meal break violation
because [name of plaintiff] gave up [his/her/ nonbinary pronoun] right to a
meal break on one or more workdays. This is called “waiver.” To
succeed on this defense, [name of defendant] must prove all of the
following:
1. That [name of plaintiff] worked no more than six total hours in a
workday; and
2. That [name of plaintiff] and [name of defendant] freely, knowingly,
and mutually consented to waiving the meal break of that
workday.
[or]
[Name of defendant] claims that there was no meal break violation
because [name of plaintiff] gave up [his/her/ nonbinary pronoun] right to a
second meal break on one or more workdays. This is called “waiver.” To
succeed on this defense, [name of defendant] must prove all of the
following:
1. That [name of plaintiff] worked no more than twelve total hours in
a workday;
2. That [name of plaintiff] did not waive [his/her/ nonbinary pronoun]
first meal break of that workday; and
3. That [name of plaintiff] and [name of defendant] freely, knowingly,
and mutually consented to waiving the second meal break.
New December 2022
Provenance
- Source
- courts.ca.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-08-20
- Edition
- caci-2025
- Content hash
5cdf2d01dbec452cbe34e1c0f062623ce54c8d74645ba21b40e713b65407104b
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.