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

1,726 chars

specializes in controlling and operating them. This desire to have legal clarity at

airports is especially understandable considering that airports can straddle multiple

municipal, county, or state lines. See RCW 14.08.200 (multiple municipalities

-8-
             
Fila Foods, LLC, eta!. v. City ofSeaTac, et al., 89723-9 (Stephens, J. Dissent)

may jointly operate an airport), .030 (municipalities may establish airports outside

this state).

II. The Minimum Wage Act, RCW 49.46.120

The majority offers an independent reason why the city of SeaTac can apply

Proposition 1 at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. It believes the

Minimum Wage Act, RCW 49.46.120, authorizes the ordinance to apply there.

See majority at 17-19. No doubt, state law could authorize a city in which an

airport is located to apply its ordinances at the airport. The Revised Airports Act

makes this clear: the municipality controlling and operating an airport has

exclusive jurisdiction and control of the airport, "subject to federal and state laws,

rules, and regulations." RCW 14.08.330 (emphasis added).

The majority relies on the Minimum Wage Act's provisiOn that "any

applicable federal, state, or local law or ordinance" that is more favorable to

employees than state law remains effective. RCW 49.46.120. The majority

reasons:

[S]tate law sets the minimum wage in any given location at the most
favorable level to the employee whether by federal, state, or local
law .... The Port of Seattle's regulatory authority over the airport is
subordinate to all state laws, including state minimum wage law, that
require it to comply with local minimum wage laws.