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

Full Text

1,718 chars

local law. No party argues that the Port of Seattle is exempt from our state minimum

wage law. The Port of Seattle's regulatory authority over the airport is subordinate to

all state laws, including the state minimum wage law, that require it to comply with

local minimum wage laws.

This argument regarding the Washington Minimum Wage Act was first

advanced by the Washington State attorney general as amicus to this court, and Filo

Foods argues that we may not consider new arguments raised only by an amicus. This

misunderstands this court's authority; while we generally decline to reach issues not

properly presented by the parties, "this court has inherent authority to consider issues

not raised by the parties if necessary to reach a proper decision." Alverado v. Wash.

Pub. Power Supply Sys., Ill Wn.2d 424,429, 759 P.2d 427 (1988) (citing Siegler v.

Kuhlman, 81 Wn.2d 448, 502 P .2d 1181 (1972)). This is especially true in a case

such as this where we are tasked with interpreting a statute. We read statutes together

to achieve a "'harmonious total statutory scheme ... which maintains the integrity of

the respective statutes."' Am. Legion Post No. 149 v. Dep 't ofHealth, 164 Wn.2d

570, 588, 192 P.3d 306 (2008) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks

omitted) (quoting State ex rel. Peninsula Neigh. Ass 'n v. Dep 't ofTransp., 142 Wn.2d

19
             
Fila Foods, LLC v. City of SeaTac
89723-9

328, 342, 12 P.3d 134 (2000)). That is because "[t]his court assumes the legislature

does not intend to create inconsistent statutes." Id.

Under Filo Foods's reading, the two statutes would be inconsistent with one