Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60254-7-II Published Opinion.pdf

[AMC] is authorized to hire, supervise, discharge and pay all servants, employees,
contractors or other personnel necessary to be employed in the management,
maintenance and operation of the Project so long as all payroll and related
expenditures for such personnel are within the [business plan] guidelines. All
employees performing services directly for the Project (excluding off-site property
manager) shall be deemed to be employees of [AMC] and the Project. When
requested by Owner, [AMC] shall consult with Owner in decisions relating to the
hiring, promotion and termination of Project employees. Owner or its
representatives will not interfere with or direct any of [AMC’s] employees.

CP at 362 (emphasis added). Thus, by agreement, AMC is the employer of the onsite employees.

This fact is further bolstered by the final clause of Section 8.1, which states, “Owner . . . will not

interfere with or direct any of [AMC’s] employees,” in reference to the onsite employees

previously mentioned in the provision. CP at 362. We note that in its briefing, AMC neglects to

address the explicit statement that AMC is the employer of the onsite employees in its discussion

of section 8.1.

15
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 60254-7-II

AMC takes issue with the use of “authorize” in the first sentence in section 8.1. Br. of

Appellant at 18. AMC contends that if the onsite employees were truly AMC employees, the

Owners would not need to “authorize” AMC to conduct its own hiring. Br. of Appellant at 18.

However, AMC confines its analysis to part of a single clause rather than the entirety of the

provision. The whole sentence states that AMC is “authorized to hire, supervise, discharge and