Question: A secretary employed by a local branch of the United Food and Commercial Workers Union was a vocal supporter of California Proposition 226, a statewide ballot initiative which, if enacted, would prohibit unions from expending dues contributions for political purposes. When she was fired by her union, she sued, claiming that terminating her because of her political position violated a clear mandate of public policy. The union moved to dismiss her state law action on the ground that union misconduct is regulated in great detail by the federal Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA). The relevant common-law rule is:"A state action is preempted when it is an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the purposes and objectives of the Congress." Applying this rule to the facts above, and assuming that the LMRDA does in fact prohibit such actions as the firing of a union employee for espousing a political position, should the state court dismiss the plaintiff 's suit against the union? See Thunderburk v. United Food and Commercial Workers Local 324, 168 LRRM (BNA) 2623 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001).