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

1,596 chars

Airport because there has been no showing that this law would interfere with airport

operations. We also hold that federal labor law does not preempt Proposition 1's

provision protecting workers from retaliation. Consequently, we uphold Proposition 1

in its entirety.

41
  FilaFoods,
LLC
 v.City

of SeaTac       
89723-9

WE CONCUR:

42
             

Fila Foods, LLC, et al. v. City ofSeaTac, et al.

No. 89723-9

STEPHENS, J. (dissenting in part)-I disagree with the majority's

conclusion that Proposition 1 may be applied at the Seattle-Tacoma International

Airport consistent with the Revised Airports Act, RCW 14.08.330. In my view,

the majority's result offends the statute's plain language, which provides that

"[e]very airport" shall be under "the exclusive jurisdiction and control" of the

"municipality ... controlling and operating it." !d. Here, it is undisputed that the

Port of Seattle controls and operates the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. Its

jurisdiction is therefore exclusive. Further, the statute provides "[n]o other

municipality in which the airport ... is located shall have any police jurisdiction of

the [airport]." !d. It is undisputed that the city of SeaTac is the municipality in

which the airport is located. The city of SeaTac thus has no police jurisdiction at

the airport. A straightforward application of RCW 14.08.330 should end the

matter.

Instead of applying the statute's clear rule, the majority holds that