Stikes, an employee of Chevron Corp., was discharged for refusing to allow the employer to search her car under a company antidrug policy, adopted in 1984, that required workers to submit to randomsearches of person and property. Stikes was a member of the bargaining unit represented by the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Union; the collective agreement covering the bargaining unit provided for arbitration of discharge cases. Rather than submit a grievance over her discharge, Stikes filed a suit against Chevron in the state court. The suit charged Chevron with wrongful discharge, intentional infliction of emotional distress, unfair business practice, and violation of rights to privacy under the state constitution. Chevron argued that the suit was preempted by Section 301 because it was a suit to enforce the collective agreement.

Does Stikes have a right to sue under state law over her discharge, or is her suit preempted by Section 301? Explain your answer. See Stikes v.

Chevron USA Inc. [914 F.2d 1265 (9th Cir. 1990)].