Chambers v. California

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• employee’s state law claim for violation of California’s constitutional right to privacy was properly removed as completely preempted
• “Here, the district court could not ascertain Stikes’ expectations of privacy at the workplace without considering the conditions of his employment enumerated in the collective bargaining agreement.”
• “Furthermore, even if California courts were to deem the right to privacy nonnegotiable in the collective bargaining process, suits based upon a violation of that right might nonetheless fall within section 301’s preemptive grip.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).