Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf

Related Parts of This Source

1,752 chars

another. RCW 49.46.120 mandates that the laws in any given location most favorable

to the employee shall be in full force and effect. That provision would be meaningless

if the Port of Seattle could trump such laws in airports it controls. RCW 49.46.120

does not carve out an exception for airports, and RCW 14.08.330 does not contain any

language indicating that the Port of Seattle's jurisdiction and control over the airport

includes the power to trump local minimum wage laws. As stated above, that

provision precludes the city of SeaTac only from interfering with the operations of an

airport. The ordinance does not do so.

"Municipal ordinances are presumed to be valid." Heinsma, 144 Wn.2d at 561.

We must try to harmonize municipal ordinances with state law when possible; we will

invalidate an ordinance only if it "'directly and irreconcilably conflicts'" with state

law. Id. at 564 (quoting Brown, 116 Wn.2d at 561). In this case, we hold that

Proposition 1 can be harmonized with RCW 14.08.330 as a matter of law. Absent a

factual showing that Proposition 1 would interfere with airport operations, the

proposition does not conflict with the Port of Seattle's jurisdiction or ability to operate

the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. Therefore, Proposition 1 can be validly

enforced at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport.

Fila Foods, LLC v. City ofSeaTac
89723-9

III. Federal Preemption

Separate from challenging the jurisdictional reach of Proposition 1, Filo Foods

challenges its substantive provisions on federal preemption grounds. It contends that

three federal statutes preempt Proposition 1: the National Labor Relations Act