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

1,747 chars

regulated employer-employee relationships and only indirectly affected industry

prices and services. 152 F.3d at 1189. The CPWL "required contractors and

subcontractors who are awarded public works contracts to pay their workers 'not less

than the general prevailing rate ... for work of a similar character in the locality in

which the public work is performed.'" Id. at 1186 (alteration in original) (quoting

CAL. LABOR CODE§ 1771). Public works contractors sued the California agencies

responsible for enforcing the CPWL, contending that the FAAA preempted the CPWL

because the CPWL "related to" the contractors' prices and services. I d. at 1189. The

contractors argued that the law "increase[ d] its prices by 25%, cause[ d] it to utilize

independent owner-operators, and compel[ ed] it to re-direct and re-route equipment to

10 The preemption provision states, "[A] State ... may not enact or enforce a law,

regulation, or other provision having the force and effect of law related to a price, route,
or service of any motor carrier ... with respect to the transportation of property." 49
U.S.C. § 1450l(c)(l).

37
  FilaFoods,
LLC
 v.City
       
of SeaTac
89723-9

compensate for lost revenue." !d. The Ninth Circuit rejected that argument,

concluding that the CPWL was not a law that directly regulated prices or services-

instead, it regulated employer-employee relationships, and its "effect [was] no more

than indirect, remote, and tenuous." !d. Thus, the court held that the FAAA did not

preempt the CPWL. !d.

We agree with the First and Ninth Circuits and hold that the ADA does not

preempt Proposition 1 because Proposition 1 regulates employer-employee