holding that “it has been established for almost a century that § 24 preempts all state law causes of action by a bank officer for breach of ah employment agreement”
How later courts described this case
- holding that “it has been established for almost a century that § 24 preempts all state law causes of action by a bank officer for breach of ah employment agreement”
- persons holding positions of vice president and serving as branch managers
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MOSK, J.,
Concurring.—Although the issue is not crystal clear, and both contentions have arguable merit, I conclude the concurring opinion of Justice Kennard is preferable.
It is obvious to me that, the bank did not consider these plaintiffs to be “other officers” within the meaning of the National Bank Act. The purported discharge of the plaintiffs was ordered, as the majority opinion concedes, *1105 “by more senior bank officers.” There is no rational way in which the bank could justify the discharge of officers by other officers.
Since the bank itself deemed these plaintiffs to be mere employees expendable at the direction of officers, there is no justification for this court to elevate the plaintiffs to the status of “other officers.”
Under these circumstances, the plaintiffs are not “other officers” and their claims are thus not preempted by the National Bank Act. Their rights should be determined under the laws of the State of California.