the provision, “designed to protect bank customers in the days before Federal deposit insurance, has no place in the modern banking industry, which needs to be able to offer certain employment prospects in order to attract management personnel of high quality.” (Kemper v. First Nat. Bank in Newton (1981) 94 Ill.App.3d 169, 171 [418 N.E.2d 819, 821].) The Marques court was evidently persuaded: “Needless to say, public trust in” a national bank “is no longer based primarily on community confidence in the personal integrity of its individual officers.” (Marques v. Bank of America, supra, 59 Cal.App.4th at p. 363, fn. 5.) It nevertheless declined to act: “It is up to Congress ... to decide whether the . . . provision has therefore become entirel ties (C.D.Ill. 1992) 797 F.Supp. 656, 663 (<HOLDING>); see also Aalgaard v. Merchants Nat. Bank,
holding to the effect that section 24 fifth has been impliedly amended by title vii 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 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 a court must consider section 24 fifth in conjunction with the antidiscrimination provisions of the bankruptcy reform act of 1978 as amended which are codified at title 11 of the united states code 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