|
P1508 REVIEW DENIED Plaintiffs who understood they were not required to answer a question on an employment application regarding marijuana convictions more than two years old, and who had no such convictions, were not damaged by the question; so although it might have violated Labor Code sections 432.7 and 432.8, plaintiffs were not members of a group protected by the statute and lacked standing to sue for its violation.CitationSTARBUCKS v SUPERIOR COURT (Marijuana Convictions) 168 CA4 1436 [See: LabC 432.7, 432.8; Buckland v Threshold 155 CA4 798, T/AT 11/07; Wawanesa v Matlock 60 CA4 583, T/AT 2/98]
|
|
