The Ninth Circuit rejected the argument that the dormant Commerce Clause barred application of California law to the airline, or that the state’s meal-and-rest-break requirements are preempted by federal laws.
The relevant aviation statutes leave room for states to regulate meal-and-rest periods and don’t otherwise conflict with California state-law requirements, it said. And the clause doesn’t invalidate a state regulation unless it’s a substantial burden, ...
Learn more about Bloomberg Law or Log In to keep reading:
See Breaking News in Context
Bloomberg Law provides trusted coverage of current events enhanced with legal analysis.
Already a subscriber?
Log in to keep reading or access research tools and resources.