Craig Byrnes

This will be the last CELA Bulletin before the election in November. The interaction between federal and State law highlighted in the cases in this Bulletin have particular importance in that context.

In Doe v. Google, Inc., the court reaffirmed that the traditional State police power extends to regulating individual working conditions, and is not preempted by the National Labor Relations Act. In Rittman v. Amazon.com, Inc., the 9th Circuit found that transportation workers involved in the flow of interstate commerce were not subject to the provisions of the Federal Arbitration Act. And in Frlekin v. Apple, Inc., the 9th Circuit made its decision based on a ruling it received on a question it certified to the California Supreme Court.

The interplay between State and federal law, and the courts that interpret them, remain a crucial aspect to jurisprudence affecting Californians. The coming election looms large, and one important reason is the numerous federal judicial vacancies waiting to be filled, including 55 district court positions. https://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/judicial-vacancies.

In each of the cases discussed in this Bulletin edition, federal law preemption was viewed with restraint. California law was determined to control, and was given effect in each instance to protect the State’s workers.

With so much in the balance in this election, we take a moment to recognize California’s important interest in regulating its workplaces, and to acknowledge the critical role that federal judges – both current and those yet to be appointed – play in respecting that interest.