Skip to main content

Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf

Citation
Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 897239.pdf
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Source verification
official_capture_completeness_unverified

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,794 chars
service of an air carrier." !d.

The United States Supreme Court has interpreted that preemption language

broadly, holding that "[s]tate enforcement actions having a connection with, or

reference to, airline 'rates, routes, or services' are pre-empted." Morales, 504 U.S. at

384 (quoting former 49 U.S.C. App. § 1305(a)(1), recodified as 49 U.S.C. §

41713(b)(1) 9). Thus, even laws that affect rates indirectly could be preempted. See

id. at 386. However, the Court noted that not all state laws will be preempted.

"'[S]ome state actions may affect [airline fares] in too tenuous, remote, or peripheral a

manner' to have pre-emptive effect." !d. at 390 (alterations in original) (quoting Shaw

v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 100 n.21, 103 S. Ct. 2890, 77 L. Ed. 2d 490

9 Although Congress has amended the ADA since Morales by replacing the word "rates"

with "prices," that change does not alter our analysis. See 49 U.S.C. § 41713(b)(l). Our
conclusion regarding preemption is based on more recent circuit court cases, as analyzed
below.

35
             
Fila Foods, LLC v. City of SeaTac
89723-9

(1983)). The Court in Morales did not draw the line for what state actions would be

too tenuous to have preemptive effect.

Although preemption under the ADA is broad, federal circuit court cases

suggest that the ADA does not preempt generally applicable laws that regulate how an

airline behaves as an employer, even though the law indirectly affects the airline's

prices and services. See DiFiore v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 646 F.3d 81, 87 (1st Cir. 2011);

Californians for Safe & Competitive Dump Truck Transp. v. Mendonca, 152 F .3d

1184, 1189 (9th Cir. 1998). In DiFiore, porters who provided curbside baggage