With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". all par ties were notified prior to oral argument of this court’s intention to consider the issue, and both sides have filed briefs directed to this issue. 15 To the extent that the case of United Air Lines v. Industrial Welfare Com. (1963) 211 Cal.App.2d 729, 744 [28 Cal.Rptr. 238], supports the contention that state regulation of working conditions is invalid outside the realm of health and safety provisions, that decision is disapproved. Numerous legislative enactments and judicial authorities make it clear that the states possess broad authority, under their police power, to prescribe minimum standards of employer conduct found necessary to protect the welfare of employees, even when health or safety considerations are not directly implicated. (See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-7 (<HOLDING>); 15 U.S.C. § 1677 (recognizing validity of

A: recognizing validity of state antidiscrimination provisions
B: recognizing continuing validity of the butner decision
C: recognizing the validity of the product rale
D: recognizing the validity of exclusive jurisdiction retention provisions in a plan
A.