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

1,759 chars

apparent shield against its application there. To say that the Minimum Wage Act

determines that Proposition 1 is an "applicable ... local law," RCW 49.46.120, at

the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport is to assume the very conclusion we are

debating. For that reason, the Minimum Wage Act does not aid our analysis.

III. Conclusion

I would affirm the superior court's judgment and hold that the plain

language of the Revised Airports Act, RCW 14.08.330, compels the result that the

municipality controlling and operating an airport has exclusive jurisdiction and

control over the airport, and the municipality in which the airport is located has no

-10-
 Filo LLC,
Foods,   
eta!. 
v. City ofSeaTac,  (Stephens,
eta!., 89723-9  J.  
Dissent) 

police jurisdiction of the airport. The city of SeaTac's Proposition 1 cannot be

enforced at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport.

I do not share the majority's concern that absent the application of

Proposition 1 at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, those who work at the

airport could be without legal recourse for obtaining employee protections. This

concern appears to rest on the view that the Port of Seattle, as a special purpose
--- - -

district, has "functional differences" from the city of SeaTac. Majority at 10. But,

we know the Port of Seattle recently enacted various protections for employees

who work at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, including that total

minimum compensation per hour must presently be $13.72 and must be $15.50

within two years. 4 And apart from the Port of Seattle's employment regulations,

employees at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport may seek the protection of