Rankin

Rankin v. Longs Drug Stores California, Inc.

Good Law
169 Cal. App. 4th 1246·2009 Cal. App. LEXIS 5·87 Cal. Rptr. 3d 543·28 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1330
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 6, 2009D052124California6,437 words

Opinion

Opinion

McDONALD, J.

Plaintiff Adam Rankin filed this lawsuit alleging that defendant Longs Drug Stores California, Inc. (Longs), violated California law because Longs’s employment application contained a question (the question) asking whether Rankin had been convicted of a crime involving the use or possession of illegal drugs during the preceding seven years. Rankin sought, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated during the relevant class period, the statutory recovery specified under Labor Code section 432.7, subdivision (c). The court certified the class, rejected Longs’s pretrial motions arguing that section 432.7 was preempted by federal law, and proceeded to trial.

At trial, the court rejected Longs’s arguments that the federal laws in effect during the class period preempted section 432.7, and rejected Longs’s claim that federal legislation enacted after the class period (the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 (CMA)) was a clarification of, rather than a change in, existing laws for purposes of the federal preemption issue. However, the trial court invited the parties to address whether enactment of the CMA should operate to abate any action against Longs…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.