|
2548 An action for wrongful termination in violation of California public policy of employment subject to a collective bargaining agreement is not pre-empted by federal law; testimony of a fellow employee was sufficient to raise an issue of fact about whether an employer's stated non-discriminatory reason for terminating an employee was pretextual; a compulsory arbitration clause in a collective bargaining agreement does not prevent an employee from suing for employment discrimination, and the right to do so is not waived by filing a grievance as required by the collective bargaining agreement.CitationDESCHENE v PINOLE POINT STEEL (Diabetes Discrimination) 75 CA4 1999 [See: Gantt v Sentry 1 C4 1083; Foley v Interactive 47 C3 654; Petermann v Teamsters 174 CA2 184; GovC 12940 etseq; 29 USC 185(a); Teamsters v Lucas Flour 369 US 95; Allis-Chalmers v Lueck 471 US 202; Moreau v SD Transit 210 CA3 614; Lingle v Norge 486 US 399; Horn v Cushman 72 CA4 798, T/AT 7/99; McDonnell Douglas v Green 411 US 792; Alexander v Gardner 415 US 36; Gilmer v Interstate 500 US 20]
|
|
