(Taking the particular issue with Sunstate and the ALAEA out of this and focusing only on the ruling.)
I'm trying to make sense of the legal speak but as far as I can understand it, at the same time it is;
1. Illegal per the regs to sign an aircraft out as fit for service when it is not and/or has unactioned/outstanding undeferrable defects.
2. Not illegal for the employer to coerce (by threat of standing you down and/or sacking you) you to certify for an aircraft which you believe is not fit for service as per above.
Am I interpreting this ruling as such ?
We have 2 sets of laws that are in conflict with each other ?