only but not those of law, including FEHA. The power that the provision grants has been characterize 91) 778 F.Supp. 950, 952-953 (same, relying on Ana Leon T. and its treatment of section 341, Fifth). But see Wiskotoni v. Michigan Nat. Bank-West (6th Cir. 1983) 716 F.2d 378, 387 (stating in dictum, outside of the context of Title VII or the ADEA, that section 24, Fifth, has “consistently been construed ... as preempting state law governing employment relations between a national bank and its officers,” without limitation as to only conflicting state law); Alfano v. First National Bank of Highland (1985) 111 A.D.2d 960, 961 [490 N.Y.S.2d 56, 58] (following Wiskotoni in holding to such effect); compare Osei-Bonsu v. Federal Home Loan Bank of New York, supra, 726 F.Supp. at pages 97-98 (<HOLDING>). 7 To the extent that other discussion by
holding to the effect that section 341 fifth as impliedly amended by title vii preempts state law to the extent but only to the extent that it conflicts holding that general maritime law preempts state law holding to the effect that section 24 fifth has been impliedly amended by title vii holding outside of the context of title vii or the adea to the effect that section 341 fifth preempts conflicting state law holding to the effect that section 1432a as impliedly amended by title vii preempts state law without limitation as to only conflicting state law