the National Bank Act of 1864 was enacted, “if an employment contract was not for a definite term, then it was presumed” at law “to be for a year”; and that, in light thereof, the “original purpose” of the “ ‘at pleasure’ language” of section 8 “was to enable banks to remove officers who otherwise would be entitled, by law, to remain at least until the end of the year”].) From all that appears, section 8 was concerned with the existence of restraints that might otherwise affect the power that it granted, and not with their nature or source—including perhaps uncontemplated state antidiscrimination statutes. ning to rely on with what it takes to be the contrary “holding” in Ana Leon T.); compare also Ana Leon T. v. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, supra, 823 F.2d at page 931 (per curiam) (<HOLDING>); Bollow v. Federal Reserve Bank of San
holding outside of the context of title vii or the adea that section 24 fifth preempts state law to the extent but only to the extent that it conflicts holding outside of the context of title vii or the adea to the effect that section 341 fifth preempts conflicting state law holding in the context of section 341 fifth that the mere existence of federal agediscrimination laws apparently including the adea does not create a property interest protected by the due process clause of the fifth amendment to the united states constitution in the form of job entitlements for government employees over a certain age holding to the effect that section 1432a as impliedly amended by title vii preempts state law without limitation as to only conflicting state law 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