Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), a chronic condition that requires periodic absences may qualify as a disability. The employer has an affirmative duty to initiate the interactive process to determine if reasonable accommodation (e.g., a modified schedule, intermittent leave) is possible before considering disciplinary action for attendance related to the condition. Failure to do so risks a disability discrimination claim.

In California, non-discretionary bonuses must be included in the regular rate of pay for overtime calculations. The new regular rate is: [(45 hrs * $30) + $100] / 45 hrs = $32.22. Overtime is paid at 1.5x this rate: $32.22 * 1.5 = $48.33. However, California also requires daily overtime. The calculation in option 1 is wrong because it uses the wrong regular rate. Option 2 correctly factors the bonus into a blended regular rate for the weekly overtime (though the exact figure is rounded for the question). Option 3 ignores weekly overtime. Option 4 incorrectly states a discretionary bonus doesn’t affect OT; ‘discretionary’ has a strict legal definition this likely doesn’t meet.

While an employer can terminate for legitimate, documented performance reasons, the timing immediately following a protected disclosure (like pregnancy) creates significant risk of a perceived retaliatory or discriminatory motive. The best practice is to pause, engage in the interactive process for potential accommodations under the Pregnancy Disability Leave (PDL) law and FEHA, and meticulously ensure the decision is based solely on the pre-existing performance issues. A jury could easily see the sequence of events as suspicious. Option 1 ignores the substantial litigation risk. Option 2 (90-day eval) could be seen as a delay tactic and isn’t required. Option 3 is incorrect; you cannot force an unnecessary transfer.

Option A is compliant. The accrual rate (1:30) meets or exceeds the minimum. Allowing use in hourly increments is required. The carry-over provision (up to 48 hours) meets the requirement to allow carry-over of at least the statutory minimum (24 hours). Option B fails because it does not allow carry-over (forfeiture is not permitted) and mandating 4-hour increments is illegal. Option C’s accrual rate (1:52) is slower than the minimum 1:30. Option D’s 90-day waiting period before use is prohibited; sick leave must be available for use by the 120th day of employment.

The first step must be a thorough, documented analysis using California’s stringent ABC test (presuming the workers are not covered by a specific exemption). This analysis is necessary to understand the full scope and severity of the misclassification before taking any corrective action. Jumping to reclassify (Option A) without the analysis could be premature if some workers might actually qualify as contractors under a different test. Reporting to authorities (Option C) is premature and could trigger an unwanted audit. While financial assessment (Option D) is important, it comes after the legal determination of status.

The work injury likely qualifies as a disability under FEHA. The employer has a mandatory duty to engage in the interactive process with the employee to identify reasonable accommodations. This could include modifying the current job (e.g., providing assistive equipment, reassigning the heavy-lifting task), or reassigning the employee to a vacant, equivalent position for which they are qualified. Option A is incorrect because reassignment must be to a vacant position, not just any light-duty role, and should be at similar pay/benefits if possible. Option B is illegal without first attempting accommodation. Option D (unpaid leave) is a last resort, not a first step.

California has a strong public policy against restraints on trade, making non-compete clauses largely unenforceable (with very narrow exceptions like in the sale of a business). Customer non-solicits (Option A) and industry-wide employment bans (Option B) are generally void. Forfeiture-for-competition clauses (Option C) are also typically unenforceable as an indirect restraint on trade. The only reliably enforceable provisions are those protecting legitimate trade secrets and confidential information (Option D), which are protected under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act, independent of a non-compete agreement.

Once an employer knows or should have known of possible harassment, it has a legal duty to take immediate and appropriate corrective action, which begins with a prompt, thorough, and impartial investigation. This is required regardless of the status of the accused. Option B is a form of retaliation against the complainant. Option C is inadequate and fails to meet the duty to investigate. Option D is incorrect; the threshold to trigger an investigation is a complaint of *possible* harassment, not a pre-determined legal conclusion.

Even in a bona fide RIF, employers must ensure the selection criteria are applied fairly and do not result in unlawful disparate impact discrimination against older workers, or workers in other protected categories. Option A is incorrect because Cal-WARN generally applies to layoffs of 50 or more employees within a 30-day period at a single site. Option B is not a legal requirement, though it may be part of a severance policy or agreement. Option C describes elements of an ADEA waiver for employees over 40, which is only required if the employer is asking for a release of claims in exchange for severance, not for the RIF itself.

Under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), a chronic condition that requires periodic absences may qualify as a disability. The employer has an affirmative duty to initiate the interactive process to determine if reasonable accommodation (e.g., a modified schedule, intermittent leave) is possible before considering disciplinary action for attendance related to the condition. Failure to do so risks a disability discrimination claim.0