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

1,697 chars

-6-
 Fila LLC,
Foods,  
et al. 
v. City ofSeaTac,  (Stephens,
et al., 89723-9  J. Dissent)
  

Under the majority's holding, the fire code exception seems misplaced. If the city
of SeaTac can unilaterally impose other measures at the airport, such as
Proposition 1's sweeping wage and employee right protections, what is the point of
requiring the Port of Seattle's consent to enforce a minimally intrusive fire code?.
Unless the majority is willing to say that enforcing a fire code "interfere[s]" with

"airport operations or the subject of aeronautics," majority at 16, the majority
leaves unanswered what role the fire code exception plays under its interpretation
of the statute.
The majority's flawed interpretation of RCW 14.08.330 foreshadows the
statute's troubled future. Under the majority opinion, whether a business operating
on airport property is bound by a city's local law will now turn on case-by-case
adjudication in court about whether the city's particular ordinance "interfere[s]"
with "airport operations or the subject of aeronautics," id. at 16, however that
concept may be construed. Even the SeaTac Committee for Good Jobs concedes

that some minimum wage ordinances will affect "airport operations" under certain
circumstances-though it maintains that Proposition 1 does not do so. See Wash.
Supreme Court Oral Argument, Fila Foods LLC v. City of SeaTac, No. 89723-9
(June 26, 2014), at 17 min., 26 sec. through 19 min. 35 sec., audio recording by
TVW, Washington State's Public Affairs Network. To see the confusion the
majority's holding will create, consider the majority's application of its new test to