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
1,796 charsfire code language because it recognized that the statute's ambiguous language called
into question Seattle's ability to enforce the uniform fire code. By adding in the
language, it "clarifie[d] an ambiguity."5 Id. Rather than disproving our interpretation,
the house bill reinforces our conclusion that the statute's language is ambiguous.
Our interpretation is further supported by the portion ofRCW 14.08.330 that
incorporates other state laws, including the Washington Minimum Wage Act, chapter
49.46 RCW. To the extent the Port of Seattle's jurisdiction over the Seattle-Tacoma
International Airport is "exclusive," its jurisdiction is still "subject to ... state laws,
rules, and regulations." RCW 14.08.330. As we have said before, that clause
subordinates the Port of Seattle's authority over the airport to applicable state law.
Port of Seattle, 92 Wn.2d at 804. One applicable state law that we must consider is
RCW 49.46.120, part of the Washington Minimum Wage Act. That statute provides:
Any standards relating to wages, hours, or other working conditions
established by any applicable federal, state, or local law or ordinance
... which are more favorable to employees than the minimum standards
applicable under this chapter ... shall be in full force and effect.
5
Unfortunately, while the legislature recognized that the existing statute was ambiguous,
it chose to clarify only the provision related to the fire code. The ambiguity with regard
to other municipal laws remains.
18
Filo Foods, LLC v. City of SeaTac
89723-9
RCW 49.46.120 (emphasis added). Thus, state law sets the minimum wage in any
given location at the most favorable level to the employee whether by federal, state, or