Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Citation
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Jurisdiction
- Washington (state)
- Source verification
- official_capture_completeness_unverified
- Original Source
- https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/897239.pdf ↗
Related Parts of This Source
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
- Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
Full Text
1,786 charsindividuals, businesses, neighborhood associations, immigrant groups, civil rights
groups, faith organizations, and labor organizations. In June 2013, the Committee
circulated a petition to city of SeaTac voters that proposed a set of minimum
employment standards for certain hospitality and transportation employers in the city
of SeaTac, including an hourly minimum wage of $15. After finding sufficient
signatures supporting the petition, the SeaTac City Council put the initiative on the
ballot.
Filo Foods LLC, BF Foods LLC, Alaska Airlines Inc., and the Washington
Restaurant Association (collectively Filo Foods) sued the city of SeaTac and City
2
Fila Foods, LLC v. City of SeaTac
89723-9
Clerk Kristina Gregg (collectively the City) to challenge the sufficiency of the
signatures to put Proposition 1 on the ballot. The Committee intervened in support of
the City. Thereafter, the superior court held that Proposition 1 could not go on the
ballot, but the Court of Appeals reversed, Fila Foods, LLC v. City of SeaTac, 179 Wn.
App. 401,319 P.3d 817, review denied, 181 Wn.2d 1006,332 P.3d 984 (2014), 1 and
the measure appeared on the November 5, 20 13, ballot. Voters approved Proposition
1 by a narrow margin. By its terms, it was scheduled to take effect on January 1,
2015.
Shortly after the election, the superior court allowed Filo Foods to amend its
complaint to include substantive challenges to Proposition 1, now an enacted
ordinance, and to name the Port of Seattle as a defendant. The Port of Seattle is a
special-purpose municipal corporation that, among other things, owns and operates
the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport within the city of SeaTac's territorial