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

1,723 chars

state law and federal law, just as is the case for the roughly 2.5 million residents of

unincorporated areas in this state without city governments. 5 This is the structure

4
See PORT OF SEATTLE, RESOLUTION 3694 (as amended July 22, 2014),
https://www.portseattle.org/About/Commission/Commission-Resolutions/Resolutions/
Resolution_No_3694_as_amended.pdf). Litigants challenged whether the Port of Seattle
has the statutory power to adopt these employee protections. But the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington denied those plaintiffs' motion for
a preliminary injunction to enjoin the Port of Seattle's regulations. The court found the
plaintiffs did not show a likelihood of success on the merits and held the Port of Seattle
has authority to adopt these employee protections. See Air Transport Ass'n of Am., Inc.
v. Port of Seattle, No. Cl4-1733-JCC (W.D. Wash. Dec. 19, 2014) (court order) (appeal
pending). Notwithstanding the majority's dicta on the subject, the Port of Seattle's
authority to adopt employment regulations is not at issue in this case.
5
See OFFICE OF FIN. MGMT. FORECASTING & RESEARCH DIV., STATE OF
WASHINGTON: 2014 POPULATION TRENDS 15 (2014), http://www.ofm.wa.gov/Pop/aprill/
poptrends.pdf; see also id. at 4 ("[T]he five largest unincorporated county areas (Pierce,
Snohomish, King, Clark, and Kitsap) have almost [the same] population as the five

-11-

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

of government that the legislature choose to institute for airports. I would leave it

undisturbed. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent on this issue.