SHRM-CP Practice Questions (2026) — Free Sample Questions with Answers

Answer: C

Ask recruiters to hand-review a sample of the applicants the tool screened out before mentioning the pattern to anyone: Less effective. A sample review may help confirm the pattern, but doing it quietly delays telling the manager before the presentation, and an informal hand check is no substitute for a formal adverse impact analysis.

Contact the vendor to request its bias-testing documentation and wait for the vendor's findings before raising the issue internally: Less effective. The vendor's documentation is worth requesting, but waiting delays the internal escalation and leaves the possibly biased screening running.

Bring the pass-rate data to the talent acquisition manager and recommend an adverse impact analysis before the presentation: Most effective. Ensuring Impartiality & Fairness calls on HR professionals to raise possible bias promptly and push for evidence-based review. The employer remains responsible for adverse impact even when a vendor's tool causes it, and the manager needs this before presenting results.

Remove graduation years from résumés before they are uploaded to the tool so that applicants' ages are less visible to the algorithm: Less effective. It is a partial fix: other proxies such as years of experience or older job titles may still drive the pattern, and it skips analysis and leadership awareness.

When an AI screening tool shows possible adverse impact, escalate the data and analyze it promptly. Vendor assurances do not shift responsibility away from the employer. Several options could help, but only the most effective is keyed.

Answer: D

Alert the district manager, since he oversees Ray's store and sets the labor targets that may be driving the problem: Less effective. The district manager's emphasis on labor targets may be part of the problem, which makes him an unsuitable first channel for an objective review.

Talk with Ray informally, as a friend, to hear his explanation for the edits before involving anyone else in the matter: Less effective. An informal talk could tip Ray off, allow records to be changed, and expose the associate to retaliation. Her friendship makes it even less appropriate.

Correct the hours for the associate who called so that she is paid properly while the larger issue is sorted out: Less effective. Fixing one paycheck is a partial fix. It skips the review needed to establish the facts and could point to the associate as the source of the complaint.

Document what she found and report it to the regional HR manager under the code of conduct so a formal review can begin: Most effective. As an ethical agent, Alicia reports suspected wage violations through the proper channel promptly and objectively, whatever her personal relationship with Ray. Documentation supports a fair review.

When HR finds evidence of possible wage-and-hour violations, it documents the evidence and reports it promptly through the designated channel instead of handling it informally. Several options could help, but only the most effective is keyed.

Answer: D

Ask the CNO to deliver the update herself so that the leadership team hears the adoption figures directly from the executive sponsor: Less effective. Maya owns the rollout and was asked for the update. Handing it to the sponsor avoids accountability rather than providing analysis.

Present the overall adoption rate and highlight the positive feedback received from the units with the highest usage so far: Less effective. Highlighting successes while glossing over the 35-point gap from the 90% target is not candid reporting and leaves leaders unable to help.

Recommend that tool adoption be written into each nurse manager's own performance goals for the next review cycle: Less effective. Accountability may be part of the solution, but this does not report or diagnose the current status and comes too late to help this quarter.

Report adoption by unit with the likely causes of the gaps, the steps underway to close them, and a revised milestone: Most effective. Managing HR Initiatives includes monitoring progress against goals and communicating status candidly, along with corrective actions. A unit-level view with causes and a plan gives leaders an accurate picture and a path forward.

Status reporting on an HR initiative should be candid and include data by segment, likely causes, corrective actions and revised milestones. Several options could help, but only the most effective is keyed.

Answer: B

Tell the current agency that Northline will not accept any increase in markup: Taking a hard position before preparing may lock Keisha into a stance she cannot sustain, especially since operations wants no disruption.

Get a firm quote from the second agency and set her walk-away point: Correct. Strong negotiators prepare by clarifying their best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA) and their limits. A firm competing quote turns a vague "could probably" into real leverage and tells Keisha when to walk away.

Ask operations leaders whether they would accept a smaller temporary workforce this peak: Exploring demand is reasonable, but it does not prepare Keisha for the negotiation itself and may not be realistic for peak season.

Accept the 34% markup to avoid any risk of disruption before peak season: Accepting without negotiating ignores the CFO's cost goal and gives up value Keisha may be able to secure through preparation.

Negotiation preparation includes identifying interests, gathering market information and knowing one's BATNA and reservation point before engaging the other party. Several options could help, but only the most effective response is keyed.

Answer: B

Focus retention efforts on Field Service because it lost the most employees: Field Service has the most separations, but it is also the largest department; its rate (25%) is lower than Customer Service's.

Explain that Customer Service has the highest turnover rate and examine its causes: Correct. Comparing rates rather than raw counts adjusts for department size. Customer Service has the highest rate (24 ÷ 80 = 30%), so it should be examined first, even though Field Service has the most separations.

Recommend a company-wide retention bonus to lower turnover in every department: A company-wide program ignores the data showing where turnover is concentrated and exceeds the budget for one targeted program.

Report the total number of separations to leadership and let them choose the focus: Reporting raw totals without analysis leaves leaders to draw the same mistaken conclusion and misses HR's role in interpreting data.

Compare turnover using rates (separations divided by headcount) so departments of different sizes can be compared fairly. Several options could help, but only the most effective response is keyed.

Answer: A

He has more seniority under a bona fide seniority system: Correct. A seniority system is one of the four statutory affirmative defenses, along with a merit system, a system measuring earnings by quantity or quality of production, and a differential based on any factor other than sex. It must be bona fide and applied consistently.

The woman's job has a different title on the org chart: Incorrect. The Equal Pay Act looks at actual job content (skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions), not job titles.

The man is the primary wage earner in his household: Incorrect. Household or 'head of family' status is not related to the job and has been rejected as a defense; it does not qualify as a factor other than sex.

Men in this role command higher pay in the outside labor market: Incorrect. In Corning Glass Works v. Brennan, the Supreme Court held that paying women less because the market lets the employer hire them for less does not justify an unequal wage.

Once equal work is shown, the employer must prove one of the four Equal Pay Act defenses: seniority, merit, quantity or quality of production, or a factor other than sex.

Answer: A

Pause the automatic cutoff so recruiters screen every applicant while HR investigates: Most effective. The women's selection rate is half the men's (15% ÷ 30% = 0.50), well below the four-fifths rule of thumb, and the screen is still rejecting applicants every day. Pausing the automatic cutoff stops further harm and legal exposure at once; gathering the vendor's audit and validation evidence is part of the investigation that follows, not a reason to leave the cutoff running. This reflects the Talent Acquisition indicator of ensuring selection tools are fair and job-related.

Request the vendor's bias audit report and validation study, and keep using the 70-point cutoff until they arrive: Less effective. The documentation is worth requesting, but continuing the cutoff while waiting lets the apparent adverse impact keep screening out women for weeks. Containment should come first; the vendor evidence belongs in the investigation that follows.

Lower the passing score from 70 to 60 for all applicants so that more women reach recruiters: Less effective. An arbitrary cutoff change may narrow the gap but leaves the tool's job-relatedness unknown, may not fix the disparity, and is not grounded in analysis. It treats a symptom before understanding the cause.

Brief the vice president of operations and recommend delaying the branch manager rollout: Less effective. Delaying the expansion is sensible, but it addresses a future risk while the current screen keeps excluding a disproportionate share of women. Stakeholder communication should follow, not replace, immediate containment.

When selection data show likely adverse impact from a tool still in use, first contain the harm by pausing the automated decision, then gather validation evidence and investigate. Requesting documentation matters, but it does not stop the ongoing exclusion, so it comes second.

Answer: D

Financial: Incorrect. The financial perspective tracks shareholder-facing results such as revenue growth, margin and return on capital. Bench strength is a capability that drives those results later, not a financial outcome.

Internal business process: Incorrect. This perspective tracks the operating processes the company must excel at, such as cycle time, quality and cost. Succession readiness is an enabler of those processes, which is what the learning and growth perspective captures.

Customer: Incorrect. The customer perspective measures how customers see the organization, such as satisfaction, retention and market share. Internal succession depth is not a customer measure.

Learning and growth: Correct. Kaplan and Norton's learning and growth perspective covers the people, skills, information systems and culture the organization needs to execute its strategy. Successor readiness measures human capital capability, so it sits here.

The balanced scorecard has four perspectives: financial, customer, internal business process, and learning and growth. Most HR capability measures (skills, engagement, succession depth) belong in learning and growth, the foundation the other three rest on.

Answer: A

Explain that details will be shared only with people who need to know to resolve it: Correct. HR cannot guarantee absolute confidentiality, because the accused must have a chance to respond and action may be needed. Promising only need-to-know sharing, and protection from retaliation, is accurate and preserves trust.

Agree to confidentiality if she submits her complaint in writing first: Putting the complaint in writing does not change HR's need to share relevant facts. The promise is still one HR cannot keep.

Tell her HR cannot act on any report unless she agrees to be named: HR must still look into credible reports of threats, even when a reporter is reluctant. Refusing to act creates safety and legal risk.

Promise her full confidentiality so that she feels safe enough to be completely candid: A promise HR cannot keep damages credibility and may compromise the investigation if her account must be used.

Investigators promise discretion and need-to-know sharing, not absolute confidentiality, and they tell participants that retaliation is prohibited.

Answer: C

1. Employer size: 600 full-time employees, so at least 100 and covered.
2. Combine losses within 90 days: 30 + 28 = 58 (February 3 to April 10 is 66 days).
3. Mass layoff test (50–499 employees): 58 ≥ 50 and 58 ≥ 150 ÷ 3 = 50.
4. Same cause, so aggregation applies and 60 days' notice was required.

Nothing, because each group was smaller than 50 employees: Each event viewed alone is below 50, but WARN aggregates employment losses at a single site within any 90-day period when they share a cause.

Nothing, because the warehouse remained open and WARN covers only plant closings: WARN covers mass layoffs as well as plant closings. A site can stay open and still have a covered mass layoff.

They must be combined, making this a mass layoff that required 60 days' notice: Correct. WARN's 90-day look-back aggregates smaller job losses at one site unless the employer shows separate and distinct causes. Here 58 employees lost jobs within 66 days for one reason. That is at least 50 and at least one-third of the 150 workers, so it is a mass layoff.

Notice was required only for the April group, since it pushed the total above 50: Aggregation treats the combined losses as one event, so notice obligations apply to all affected employees, not just the later group.

A WARN mass layoff is 500+ employees, or 50–499 who are at least 33% of the site's full-time workforce, within 30 days. Separate losses within 90 days are aggregated unless the employer proves separate and distinct causes.

Answer: D

The firm keeps sole employer status and its own tax ID, and the PEO only processes payroll and benefits as a vendor.: This describes an administrative services organization (ASO) or payroll vendor. Under an ASO the client remains the only employer of record; a PEO shares that status.

The employees become the PEO's staff on temporary assignment, and the firm may return them to the PEO at any time.: This describes a temporary staffing agency. PEO worksite employees are the client's existing workforce, not temporary workers placed by the PEO.

The PEO assumes every employer obligation, so the firm no longer carries any liability for workplace claims by its staff.: Co-employment shares, but does not eliminate, the client's obligations. The client still controls the workplace and can remain liable for discrimination, safety and wage-hour issues there.

The PEO and the firm become co-employers; the PEO runs payroll, taxes and benefits, and the firm directs daily work.: Correct. A PEO arrangement is co-employment. The PEO usually reports wages and employment taxes under its own federal ID and sponsors benefit plans, while the client keeps control of hiring, daily supervision and the work itself.

A PEO creates co-employment: it handles employer administration (payroll, taxes, benefits) while the client directs the work and keeps workplace responsibilities. An ASO provides services without becoming an employer.

Answer: B

It is strictly liable because the harasser was her supervisor: Strict (automatic) liability for supervisor harassment applies when the harassment ends in a tangible employment action, which did not happen here.

It may raise an affirmative defense based on its policy and her failure to use it: Correct. Under Faragher and Ellerth, when no tangible action occurred, the employer can avoid liability by proving it took reasonable care to prevent and correct harassment and the employee unreasonably failed to use those opportunities.

It has no liability because she suffered no economic harm: A hostile work environment is actionable without economic loss; the employer must still prove the affirmative defense.

It is liable only if senior leaders actually knew of the harassment: A knew-or-should-have-known negligence standard applies to coworker harassment, not to supervisor harassment.

Supervisor harassment with a tangible employment action = vicarious liability; without one, the employer may use the Faragher/Ellerth affirmative defense (reasonable care + employee's unreasonable failure to complain).