浏览所有题目

Labor Code §1171.5(a) and Civil Code §3339 declare that all protections, rights and remedies of California employment law apply to all individuals regardless of immigration status, and that a person's status is irrelevant to liability except where federal law requires otherwise. So the framer recovers unpaid overtime through the DLSE or the courts like anyone else. (a) makes the remedy wait on status, which would hand the employer the benefit of the violation. (b) concedes coverage but downgrades the standard to the federal floor - California's daily overtime and higher minimum wage apply in full. (d) is the plain denial employers sometimes make, and it is also why §244(b) makes threatening to report status a separate violation.

Labor Code §1019 makes it an unlawful employment practice to report or threaten to report a worker's suspected immigration status in retaliation for exercising a protected right, §244(b) confirms that reporting status is retaliation regardless of the worker's actual status, and Business & Professions Code §494.6 allows suspension of a business license for it - on top of §98.6 penalties. (d) is the option that tempts: it treats a true statement as a safe one, but the wrong lies in the coercive purpose, not in the accuracy. (c) reframes coercion as bargaining, which is exactly what §1019 forbids. (b) treats the threat as merely distasteful.

Labor Code §201.3(b)(1) requires a temporary services employer to pay its assigned employees weekly, with the prior week's wages due on a regular designated payday, regardless of when the assignment ends. (b) is the pay-when-paid practice the section was written to stop - the agency's duty to its employees does not depend on the client remitting the invoice, and Labor Code §2810.3 can put the client contractor on the hook for those wages anyway. (c) holds the money to the end of the assignment, which on a long job could mean months. (a) applies the ordinary §204 rhythm, which is itself twice monthly rather than monthly, and in any case is displaced here by §201.3. Day-to-day and same-day assignments have their own rules in §201.3(b)(4)-(5).

Labor Code §206.5(a) makes it unlawful to require an employee to execute a release of a claim for wages as a condition of being paid, and any release so obtained is null and void; §206 separately requires the employer to pay the undisputed portion outright. (a) states the general contract principle, which is true of most claims and is precisely the principle §206.5 carves wages out of. (c) adds a formality that changes nothing - notarization proves who signed, not that the signature was free. (d) names the real leverage and mistakes it for consent. The employer must pay what it concedes is owed; the genuinely disputed overtime can be litigated or settled on its own.

An electronic wage statement is lawful where it carries every item Labor Code §226(a) requires, the employee can access it freely and print a hard copy, and the record is retained the required period - the DLSE's 2006 opinion letter sets out those conditions. (c) is the condition that flips the rule into a violation: charging for access, or requiring the worker to supply their own device or connection, converts a lawful electronic stub into an unlawful one and can trigger a §2802 reimbursement claim as well. (b) treats paper as mandatory. (d) invents an exempt-only limit; the format rule is the same for every employee, and it is the non-exempt worker whose stub must carry hours and rates.

See's Candy allowed rounding only where the policy is neutral on its face and as applied, so it neither favors the employer over time nor undercompensates anyone. Where the timekeeping system already captures every minute, paying the recorded minutes is the only practice with no exposure - and the Court of Appeal in Camp v. Home Depot questioned rounding in exactly that situation, though the California Supreme Court granted review, so that opinion is not binding authority. (a) is the practice that fails See's Candy outright: a policy that always rounds the employer's way is by definition not neutral. (b) reads See's Candy as a blanket permission. (c) has it backwards - no statute requires rounding; it is a payroll convenience from the era of hand-totaled timecards.

Hours worked means the time during which the employee is subject to the control of the employer, including all the time the employer suffers or permits the worker to work - so cleanup and loading after the clock-out is compensable, and telling the crew to clock out first is what makes it willful. (d) is the volunteer label, and it fails because an employee cannot volunteer for their own employer's benefit in a for-profit business. (c) recasts a foreman's instruction as the worker's initiative; the employer knew or should have known, which is all the standard requires. (a) dresses 20 minutes as rounding, but rounding operates on recorded time, not on unrecorded work. Unpaid, this time also drags the wage below minimum and defeats overtime, and it supports §203 and §226 exposure.

Wage Order 16 covers certain on-site occupations in construction, drilling, logging and mining, and it differs from the general orders in ways that matter on a jobsite: meal and rest period mechanics, travel and on-site rules, and - notably - it defines a split shift but adopts no split-shift premium, unlike Wage Orders 1 through 15. (a) is the order that covers the same contractor's OFFICE staff, which is why a company can sit under two orders at once. (c) and (d) are the retail and food-service orders. Picking the wrong order is not academic: the wrong order gives the wrong answer on breaks and premiums.

8 CCR §3395(d) requires that outdoor workers be allowed and encouraged to take a cool-down rest in the shade of at least five minutes whenever they feel the need, and Labor Code §226.7(b) treats a denied recovery period like a denied rest period, carrying the same one-hour premium - so the time is paid and counted as hours worked. (b) attaches the right kind of trigger to the wrong number: access to shade is required at 80 degrees and the high-heat procedures in §3395(e) start at 95 degrees, but a recovery period is available on the worker's need at any temperature. (c) would take the time out of an unpaid meal period, making the worker fund their own safety break. (d) makes it unpaid and recoupable, which is the opposite of hours worked.

Labor Code §1182.12 puts the state minimum wage on a statutory schedule with inflation adjustments, and §1205(b) confirms that a local ordinance setting a higher wage is not displaced - so a contractor working across county lines can owe several different rates in one week and must pay the highest applicable one at each site. (d) is the belief that the state figure is fixed and only Congress moves; the opposite is closer to true, since the federal rate has not moved since 2009. (a) inverts the direction of travel. (c) makes the schedule arbitrary, which understates how predictable and therefore how trackable the increases are. Bidding a multi-year job at today's rate is how this becomes a money problem rather than a paperwork one.

An exemption under Labor Code §515(a) takes both a qualifying salary and primary engagement in exempt duties; a coordinator who spends most of the day swinging a hammer fails the duties half whatever the salary, so daily and weekly overtime under §510 apply. (c) is the salary fallacy, the single most common misclassification in a contractor's office. (b) is the title fallacy - 'coordinator', 'supervisor', 'manager' are not exempt duties, and the DLSE looks at how the day is actually spent. (d) adds a request requirement: overtime is owed by operation of law, and an employee cannot waive it or be made to ask for it under Labor Code §219.

Labor Code §558.1(a) makes any employer, or any other person acting on behalf of an employer, who violates or causes a violation of the wage provisions personally liable as the employer; §558.1(b) defines that person as an owner, director, officer or managing agent. So a principal who sets the payroll practice can be sued individually for minimum wage, overtime, §226 wage-statement and §2802 reimbursement violations. (c) is the corporate-shield belief, and it is right for most business debts, which is what makes §558.1 easy to miss. (d) ties exposure to insurance, which does not create or remove liability. (a) invokes a constitutional objection that does not exist; the Legislature may impose statutory personal liability.

Because Labor Code §1174(d) puts the duty to keep accurate hour records on the employer, Hernandez v. Mendoza - following Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery - lets the employee carry the point with a reasonable estimate, after which the burden shifts to the employer to show the estimate is wrong. (d) and (c) both hand the employer the benefit of its own failure, which is exactly the outcome the rule prevents; (c) is the more tempting of the two because in most civil litigation the party with the burden does lose for want of proof. (a) misreads the rule as ignoring hours; hours are still proved, just by the employee's account rather than the payroll file.

Section 4(C) of Wage Orders 1 through 15 adds one hour's pay at the state minimum wage when the employee works a split shift - two work periods separated by more than a bona fide meal period - and it operates as a top-up, so it is owed only to the extent the day's earnings do not already exceed the minimum wage for the hours worked plus that extra hour. An office clerk falls under Wage Order 4, so she is owed it. (c) is the answer for the crew on the roof: Wage Order 16 defines a split shift but the IWC adopted no premium for it, so an on-site construction worker gets nothing for the same schedule. (b) borrows reporting-time pay, which applies when a worker is sent home early, not when the shift is split. (a) invents a double-time rule; premium time turns on hours worked in the day, not on how the day is arranged.

Business & Professions Code §7110 makes willful or deliberate disregard of the state labor laws - and of the workers' compensation, safety and unemployment insurance laws - a ground for discipline, so wage violations reach the license as well as the bank account, and §7125.2 suspends a license automatically when workers' comp coverage lapses. (b) is the belief that labor law and licensing law run in separate lanes. (c) reduces it to a tax consequence, which understates both: EDD assessments and CSLB discipline are independent exposures from the same facts. (d) invents a remedy no statute provides; a license is personal to the qualifier and cannot be transferred to a claimant - an unpaid worker's route to the money is a wage claim, or the §7071.6 bond.

Labor Code §226(a)(9) requires a piece-rate employee's statement to show the number of piece-rate units earned and any applicable piece rate, and §226.2(a)(2) adds separately stated totals for rest and recovery periods and other nonproductive time, with the hours and rates paid for each. (a) is the figure a worker might most want to see and the one the employer is least obliged to disclose; what the customer paid has nothing to do with the wage owed. (c) is the same confusion in the employer's direction. (d) belongs on the job ticket, not on the pay stub. The point of the piece-rate items is that a worker paid by the unit can still verify both the units and the separately paid time.

Section 203 penalties require a willful failure to pay, and 8 CCR §13520 provides that a good-faith dispute over whether any wages are due defeats willfulness even where the employer's legal position ultimately loses - the defense fails only if the position is unsupported by any evidence or law, or is asserted in bad faith. (c) is the strict-liability reading and is the intuitive one, since a court did find money owed. (b) denies the defense outright. (d) invents a dollar floor; the regulation asks whether the dispute is bona fide, not how big it is. Note the limit: withholding the plainly undisputed portion while arguing about the rest is not a good-faith dispute, it is a §206 violation.

Two independent rules stack. Labor Code §510(a) splits the 13-hour day into 8 hours straight, hours 9 through 12 at one and one-half times, and the thirteenth hour at double time. Labor Code §226.7(c) then adds one premium hour for the missed meal period and a second for the missed rest periods. (a) treats the premiums as the whole remedy, which is the mirror of (b), treating the overtime tiers as the whole remedy - the two most common half-answers, and each leaves about an hour's pay on the table. (c) flattens the day to a single overtime rate and misses the 12-hour double-time line as well as both premiums. Premiums are not wages for hours worked and are not themselves folded back into the overtime base.

Labor Code §3700 requires every California employer to secure workers' compensation coverage for its employees. There is no minimum-employee threshold: coverage is mandatory the moment a business has even a single employee, whether full-time or part-time.

Workers' compensation is a no-fault system under Labor Code §3600. An employee injured in the course of employment is generally entitled to benefits without having to prove the employer was negligent, and in exchange the employee usually cannot sue the employer in civil court for the injury.

Labor Code §3751(a) makes it a misdemeanor for an employer to receive from an employee any contribution, or make any deduction from wages, to cover any part of the workers' compensation premium - the entire cost sits with the employer. (c) and (d) both import the FICA and SDI habit of splitting or withholding a payroll cost; SDI genuinely is withheld from the employee, which is what makes the mistake natural. (b) confuses workers' compensation with a state benefit program; California's system is privately insured (or self-insured), with State Fund competing as one carrier among many, not a tax-funded entitlement. A deduction taken in violation of §3751 must be repaid and can carry a penalty of ten times the amount taken.

Labor Code §3700.5 makes it a misdemeanor for an employer to be illegally uninsured, punishable by imprisonment in county jail, a fine of not less than $10,000, or both. Employees cannot waive their right to coverage.

Labor Code §3706 lets the employee of an illegally uninsured employer bring a civil action for damages instead of being confined to the compensation system, and §3708 presumes the injury resulted from the employer's negligence while barring the defenses of contributory negligence, assumption of risk, and fellow-servant. That is why going uninsured is far more dangerous than the premium saved. (b) is the belief that the exclusive remedy rule holds whether or not the employer insured - it does not; the exclusivity is the employer's reward for carrying coverage. (d) invents a state doubling remedy. (c) confuses CSLB, a licensing body that pays no claims, with the Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund, which does pay benefits and then pursues the employer for reimbursement.

Labor Code §3710.1 lets the Director issue a stop order that prohibits the use of employee labor until coverage is obtained, and §3722(a) pairs it with a penalty assessment of $1,500 per employee employed when the order is served; violating a stop order is a misdemeanor under §3726 and also carries the employees' pay for the time they are idled. (b) borrows the Labor Commissioner's wage-claim remedy, which is a different division enforcing a different statute. (c) and (d) both assume enforcement reaches assets or privileges unrelated to the violation; the state's leverage here is the ability to stop the work, which on a funded job is worse than a fine.

Under B&P §7125(b) as amended by SB 1455 (Stats. 2024, ch. 485), a licensee with no employees may file an exemption statement instead of carrying coverage — unless it holds a C-8 (concrete), C-20 (warm-air heating and air-conditioning), C-22 (asbestos abatement), C-39 (roofing) or D-49 (tree service) classification. Those holders must carry workers' compensation or a certification of self-insurance whether or not anyone is employed (b). (d) is the rule SB 216 wrote to start on January 1, 2026; SB 1455 postponed it to January 1, 2028, so study material that presents it as current is out of date. From that date every licensee must carry coverage except a §7029 joint venture with no employees, and by January 1, 2027 §7125.7 requires the board to have a process for verifying that licensees claiming the no-employee exemption qualify. (a) confuses this with the public-works rules, and (c) invents a duty that turns on the Class B license.

Under Bus. & Prof. Code §7125.2, failure to maintain required workers' compensation coverage results in automatic suspension of the license by operation of law. The suspension is effective on the date coverage lapsed, and the contractor may not lawfully operate until coverage and proof are restored.

Labor Code §2750.5 makes it a conclusive presumption, for work requiring a contractor's license, that anyone performing it without a license is an employee rather than an independent contractor, and §3357 presumes every person rendering service for another is an employee. So the unlicensed sub and the crew it brought become the general contractor's employees for compensation purposes, and the general's carrier answers for the injury. (a) is the contract-privity intuition - the general never hired that worker - which §2750.5 overrides precisely to stop the layering of unlicensed labor. (b) revives assumption of risk, abolished in this system. (d) names a real fund, but UEBTF pays where the liable EMPLOYER is uninsured, and here the deemed employer has coverage.

Two exposures have to be closed at once: an unlicensed sub's workers become the general's employees under Labor Code §2750.5, and a licensed sub that has employees must itself carry coverage under B&P §7125 - so the general checks the license on the CSLB site and takes a current certificate of insurance before the sub sets foot on the job. (d) closes only half of it and is the most seductive: a genuine sole proprietor with no crew may hold a valid no-employee exemption, but if he quietly brings a helper, the general has an uninsured worker on site. (c) buys nothing - a private waiver cannot override statutory compensation liability. (a) makes it worse, since cash payment is evidence of exactly the arrangement §2750.5 targets.

Under Labor Code §5401, the employer must provide the DWC-1 claim form to the employee within one working day after learning of a work-related injury or illness that results in lost time beyond the shift or requires medical treatment beyond first aid. Prompt delivery starts the claim process and protects the employee's rights.

Labor Code §3550 requires every employer to keep posted, in a conspicuous place at the worksite and in Spanish as well as English where there are Spanish-speaking employees, a notice of the right to workers' compensation benefits naming the claims administrator - failing to post is a misdemeanor and, under §3550(e), lets the employee rebut the presumption that a late claim was untimely. (d) is the closest wrong answer: a jobsite genuinely must post the applicable IWC Wage Order and, on public works, the prevailing wage determination, but no posting discloses individual employees' pay. (b) and (c) are financial documents no employer posts for a crew.

Labor Code §3600 requires that the injury arise out of and occur in the course of employment (commonly abbreviated AOE/COE). Injuries connected to the work and occurring while the employee is performing job duties are covered; purely personal injuries unrelated to work generally are not.

Labor Code §132a makes it unlawful to discharge, threaten to discharge, or discriminate against an employee for filing or intending to file a workers' compensation claim. Remedies include a 50% increase in compensation (up to a cap), reinstatement, and reimbursement of lost wages and benefits.

The State Compensation Insurance Fund (State Fund) is a state-created insurer that competes with private carriers and serves as the insurer of last resort. A contractor unable to obtain coverage on the private market can obtain a workers' compensation policy through State Fund.

Labor Code §3700(b) satisfies the coverage requirement only through a certificate of consent to self-insure issued by the Director of Industrial Relations, which takes proof of financial strength and a posted security deposit that is adjusted annually. (a) is the distinction that matters: an uninsured employer's promise to pay, however sincere and however solvent the promisor, is not a certificate, and the employer is illegally uninsured until one issues. (d) confuses group health with occupational injury coverage - a health plan neither pays temporary disability nor protects the employer's exclusive-remedy shield. (b) invents a CSLB fee; the CSLB records coverage, it does not provide it.

Workers' compensation provides medical care, temporary disability, permanent disability, supplemental job displacement, and death benefits. It does NOT provide pain-and-suffering or punitive damages; that trade-off is the essence of the no-fault bargain, which limits the employee to statutory benefits in exchange for not needing to prove fault.

B&P §7125.4 makes the filing of false or fraudulent workers' compensation information with the Board grounds for disciplinary action under §7090, which reaches suspension and revocation. (d) is the answer many licensees expect, because the Board does issue citations and correction letters for genuine clerical slips - but §7125.4 is aimed at a false statement, and the difference between an error and a misstatement is the whole section. (b) frames it as paperwork. (a) separates civil and licensing consequences, and they in fact run together: the same false certificate can support discipline here, an EDD assessment, and §3722 penalties.

Labor Code §3357 establishes a presumption that any person rendering service for another, other than as an independent contractor, is an employee. The burden falls on the hirer to prove independent-contractor status, which is why contractors must be careful about how they classify and pay their workers.

Labor Code §3722(a) assesses $1,500 per employee employed when a stop order is served, and §3722(b) assesses, on a finding of failure to secure coverage, the greater of twice the premium avoided or $1,500 per employee for the uninsured period. The figures climb if someone is hurt: §3722(d) sets $2,000 per employee for a noncompensable claimed injury and $10,000 per employee employed on the date of a compensable one, and §3722(f) caps total penalties at $100,000 except for those under subdivision (b). (a) and (b) are the sort of nominal sums a contractor hopes for and are off by an order of magnitude or more. (c) is the belief that a first offense draws a warning, which is what stop-order enforcement specifically does not do.

Until January 1, 2028, B&P §7125(b) as amended by SB 1455 (Stats. 2024, ch. 485) lets a licensee with no employees file a statement certifying that it employs no one subject to the workers' compensation laws, instead of carrying a policy — unless it holds a C-8, C-20, C-22, C-39 or D-49 classification. A Class B sole owner with no employees can use it (b). (a) is the tempting answer because SB 216 was written to end this exemption on January 1, 2026; SB 1455 postponed that to January 1, 2028, when only a §7029 joint venture with no employees will remain exempt and this sole owner will have to carry coverage. (c) is not a substitute the statute offers. (d) is wrong in the other direction: a sole owner who hires even one helper must carry coverage at once, and the exemption stops covering him the day he does.

Labor Code §3600.5(a) brings an employee hired outside California but injured while working here within the California system, and §3700 requires the employer to have secured coverage for that work - in practice an 'other states' or California endorsement on the existing policy, or a California policy. (a) is the assumption most out-of-state contractors arrive with, and it is the reason they end up illegally uninsured: many home-state policies exclude California by name, so the certificate in the file covers nothing here. Note §3600.5(b)'s narrow exception for a temporary worker from a reciprocal state whose own state's coverage is extraterritorial. (c) covers one worker and leaves the rest bare. (d) is uninsured operation by choice.

A certificate of insurance is a document the carrier issues confirming that a workers' compensation policy exists and showing its dates and limits; generals and owners demand a current one before letting a sub start, because an expired certificate in the file is how a hiring party inherits an uninsured injury. (d) is the substitution error - the certificate evidences a policy, it is not one, and a certificate whose underlying policy has been cancelled proves nothing. (b) points at the CSLB, which does receive coverage certificates under B&P §7125(a) but issues none. (a) understates a practice that is close to universal, and is contradicted by the liability the general takes on under Labor Code §2750.5 if the sub turns out to be bare.

Labor Code §4600(a) obliges the employer, through its carrier, to provide the medical treatment reasonably required to cure or relieve the effects of the injury, and the injured worker pays nothing - no deductible, no co-payment. (a) is a dollar cap in the wrong place: there IS a cap, but it is §5402(c)'s $10,000 of treatment the employer must authorize while the claim decision is pending, not a ceiling on a covered injury. (c) borrows the same idea in a different shape. (b) describes a group health plan's reimbursement model, which is what a worker who files under the wrong plan actually experiences. Treatment is still filtered through the medical treatment utilization schedule and, where one exists, the employer's medical provider network.

Compensation requires, among the conditions in Labor Code §3600(a), that the injury arise out of and in the course of employment and not be one of the listed exclusions: intoxication, intentional self-infliction, and - the one here - an altercation in which the injured employee was the initial physical aggressor. (a) states the system's governing principle correctly and then overreads it: no-fault removes the employee's negligence from the analysis, it does not remove the statutory exclusions. (b) drops the requirement that the injury arise out of the employment, which a personal grudge does not. (d) states a strict liability the statute never imposed. A fight over the work itself, rather than a private quarrel, can come out the other way.

Labor Code §2922 provides that an employment having no specified term may be terminated at the will of either party on notice to the other, which makes at-will the default rather than a term of art the employer must invoke. (a) is the just-cause rule that governs under most collective bargaining agreements and in a handful of other jurisdictions, so a worker arriving from a union job may genuinely expect it. (b) borrows §2922's own companion rule from §2855, which caps a PERSONAL SERVICES contract at seven years and has nothing to do with a default term. (c) invents a conversion. The presumption is rebuttable - an implied contract, a handbook promise, or an express term can displace it - and it never licenses a termination for an unlawful reason.

At-will means an employer may terminate for a good reason, a bad reason, or no reason - but not for an unlawful one. Government Code §12940(a) bars discharge because of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical or mental disability, medical condition, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, veteran status, or age 40 and over. (b), (c) and (d) are all lawful grounds, and the reason all three belong here is that a real termination usually has one of them available as a stated reason; the FEHA question is whether it is the actual reason or a pretext. Other unlawful reasons sit outside FEHA too - retaliation for a wage claim under Labor Code §98.6, or whistleblowing under §1102.5.

California recognizes a wrongful-termination-in-violation-of-public-policy claim (the Tameny doctrine). Firing an employee for refusing to break the law, for reporting illegal conduct, or for exercising a legal right violates fundamental public policy and creates employer liability despite the at-will presumption.

Foley recognized that an implied-in-fact contract limiting termination to good cause can be built from the employer's own conduct - repeated assurances of security, long service, steady promotions and consistently good reviews - and Guz confirmed that such a contract displaces the §2922 presumption. A promise of work 'as long as you do good work' is a good-cause standard stated out loud. (d) is the closest wrong answer and the reason this is worth thinking about: silence does NOT weaken at-will, because §2922 supplies the default when nothing is said, which is why the danger lies in what a supervisor volunteers rather than in what the file omits. (b) and (c) are the two standard ways of preserving at-will, not of undermining it.

Under Labor Code §201, an employee who is discharged must be paid all earned and unpaid wages immediately at the time of termination. (An employee who quits without notice is paid within 72 hours under §202.) Late final pay can trigger waiting-time penalties under §203.

Labor Code §203(a) continues the discharged employee's wages at the same daily rate, as a penalty, from the due date until paid, to a maximum of 30 calendar days - so the clock, not the size of the shortfall, drives the number. (b) treats §201's same-day rule for a discharge and §202's 72-hour rule for a quit without notice as advisory; they are deadlines, and missing them willfully is what triggers §203. (c) substitutes a flat sum, which would make the penalty trivial for a well-paid superintendent. (a) borrows a treble multiplier from elsewhere. The penalty accrues on the daily wage even where the unpaid amount is small, so a $200 shortfall on a $400-a-day carpenter can carry $12,000.

The California WARN Act (Labor Code §1400 et seq.) requires covered employers (generally those with 75 or more employees) to provide 60 days' written notice before a mass layoff, relocation, or termination of operations. Failure to give notice can make the employer liable for back pay and benefits.