Washington Cases April 05, 2021: Hassan v. GCA Prod. Servs., Inc.

Case Description

PUBLISHED IN PART

Smith , J.

¶ 1 This case revolves around the interpretation of SeaTac Municipal Code (SMC) 7.45.010(M)(2) (ordinance), which requires defined transportation employers, including those that provide or operate rental car services, to pay employees $15 per hour. In 2009, GCA Production Services Inc. (GCA) contracted with Avis Budget Car Rental LLC (Avis) to shuttle Avis's rental cars to and from its Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (Sea-Tac Airport) location in SeaTac, Washington. In 2014, after SeaTac residents voted to raise the minimum wage for certain, but not all, employees, the city of SeaTac enacted SMC 7.45.050. When GCA failed to pay its employees $15 per hour, a number of employees filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, and others filed wage complaints with the Washington Department of Labor and Industries (DLI). The employees alleged—and allege here—that GCA is a transportation employer subject to the ordinance. The district court and DLI concluded that the ordinance did not apply to GCA.

¶ 2 Later, many of the same employees filed a complaint in superior court, which is the subject of this appeal. GCA moved to dismiss the lawsuit based on the doctrines of claim preclusion and collateral estoppel. On December 11, 2018, in its order on GCA's motion to dismiss (2018 Order), the court addressed the motion as a summary judgment motion and concluded that claim preclusion barred 13 employee-plaintiffs who had filed complaints with DLI from relitigating their claim. GCA then moved for summary judgment, this time arguing that it was not subject to the ordinance. On September 4, 2019, the superior court granted GCA's motion and concluded that GCA was not a transportation employer under the ordinance (2019 Order).

¶ 3 The employees appeal both orders. In the unpublished portion of this opinion, we review the issue of claim preclusion and GCA's appeal of the 2018 Order. To this end, because an additional 37 plaintiffs had filed wage complaints with DLI, claim preclusion also bars their claims. Therefore, we reverse

[484 P.3d 510]

the 2018 Order as to those 37 employees and dismiss their complaints. In the published portion of this opinion, we review whether GCA is a transportation employer under the ordinance. With regard to the 2019 Order and the remaining 9 employees, because the ordinary meaning of providing or operating rental car services does not include the services that GCA provided to Avis, the trial court did not err when it concluded that GCA was not subject to the ordinance. Therefore, we reverse in part the 2018 Order, but we affirm the 2019 Order. We thereby dismiss the complaint in its entirety.

FACTS

¶ 4 In September 2009, GCA and Avis entered into the Master Supplier Agreement (MSA). Pursuant to the MSA, GCA managed and operated "the on-airport shuttling and off-airport shuttling duties for" Avis as an independent contractor. Specifically, GCA transported Avis's rental cars between various Avis locations in Seattle, Everett, Tukwila, and Tacoma, Washington.

¶ 5 In 2013, by voter initiative, SeaTac voters passed Proposition 1, which required a $15 minimum hourly wage for defined transportation and hospitality employers. Subsequently, SeaTac enacted the proposition as chapter 7.45 SMC, which took effect on January 1, 2014.

¶ 6 In 2016, a group of GCA employees filed a complaint against GCA Services Group Inc. (GSG) in the District Court for the Western District of Washington. The plaintiffs sought payment of wages from GCA in accordance with the ordinance. They argued that GSG was a transportation employer under SMC 7.45.010(M)(1), because it provided baggage handling, ground transportation management, and customer service in SeaTac. GSG moved for summary judgment, which the court granted, finding that GSG was not a transportation employer under SMC 7.45.010(M)(1). After the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, the plaintiffs amended their complaint. However, the parties stipulated to dismissal with prejudice a few months later. The plaintiffs did not appeal.

¶ 7 In February 2017, DLI sent GCA a letter, asserting that it had received wage complaints from 93 GCA employees (complainants) and that it would begin an investigation into those claims. Some complainants filed "minimum wage not paid claims," while others asserted that GCA violated the ordinance, specifically. However, DLI's letter indicated that the "complaints focus on [GCA's] failure to pay minimum wage set forth in" SMC 7.45.050. GSG, on behalf of GCA, responded, contending that it had "already been held as a matter of law to not be covered under the relevant SeaTac ordinance."

¶ 8 On July 21, 2017, DLI issued a "Determination of Compliance." DLI concluded that GCA did "not meet the definition of a `Transportation Employer' for the purpose of Ordinance SMC 7.45." Seven complainants appealed to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), which affirmed DLI's order.

¶ 9 On May 7, 2018, 32 employees filed the complaint in this case. They alleged that GCA was a transportation employer under SMC 7.45.010(M)(2) because it provided rental car services. A week later, the employees amended the complaint, adding 28 plaintiffs but asserting the same claim.

¶ 10 GCA answered the complaint and asserted that the complaint was barred "in whole or in part" because of claim preclusion or collateral estoppel. It filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that among other lawsuits and complaints, the DLI investigation constituted

[484 P.3d 511]

a final judgment on the merits for the purpose of claim preclusion and collateral estoppel. GCA provided the court with a letter from DLI, which certified that there were no records found for nine plaintiffs.

¶ 11 The court granted in part and denied in part GCA's motion to dismiss but "consider[ed] the motion as one for summary judgment." It concluded that the DLI order and the doctrine of issue preclusion barred 13 plaintiffs' claims. Thus, the court allowed the remaining 46 plaintiffs' claims to go forward.

¶ 12 Following the court's order, the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment, and GCA filed a cross motion for summary judgment. GCA asserted that it was not a transportation employer and again asserted that the appellants' claims were "barred under the doctrines of claim and issue preclusion." The trial court granted GCA's motion, concluding that GCA did not fall under the ordinance's definition of transportation employer. The remaining employees (appellants) appeal both trial court orders.

ANALYSIS

¶ 13 Under CR 56(c), "summary judgment is appropriate where there is `no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.'" Elcon Constr., Inc. v. E. Wash. Univ. , 174 Wn.2d 157, 164, 273 P.3d 965 (2012) (alteration in original). "We review rulings on summary judgment and issues of statutory interpretation de novo." Am. Legion Post No. 149 v. Dep't of Health , 164 Wn.2d 570, 584, 192 P.3d 306 (2008).

SMC 7.45.010(M)(2)

¶ 14 The appellants contend that the trial court erred when it concluded in its 2019 Order that GCA was not a transportation employer. Because GCA did not provide or operate rental car services under the ordinary meaning of the terms, we disagree.

¶ 15 "We ... construe a municipal ordinance according to the rules of statutory interpretation." City of Seattle v. Swanson , 193 Wn.App. 795, 810, 373 P.3d 342 (2016). In statutory interpretation, our main "`objective is to ascertain and carry out the Legislature's intent.'" Seattle Hous. Auth. v. City of Seattle , 3 Wash. App. 2d 532, 538, 416 P.3d 1280 (2018) (quoting Citizens All. for Prop. Rights Legal Fund v. San Juan County , 184 Wn.2d 428, 435, 359 P.3d 753 (2015)). "`[I]f the statute's meaning is plain on its face, then the court must give effect to that plain meaning as an expression of legislative intent.'" Seattle Hous. Auth. , 3 Wash. App. 2d at 538, 416 P.3d 1280 (alteration in original) (quoting Citizens All. , 184 Wash.2d at 435, 359 P.3d 753). Statutory analysis "begins with the text and, for most purposes, should end there as well." Malyon v. Pierce County , 131 Wn.2d 779, 799, 935 P.2d 1272 (1997).

¶ 16 Similarly, "[i]nitiatives will be interpreted from their plain language, if possible. However, when an initiative is susceptible to multiple interpretations, we employ the standard tools of statutory construction to aid our interpretation." Parents Involved in Cmty. Sch. v. Seattle Sch. Dist. No. 1 , 149 Wn.2d 660, 670, 72 P.3d 151 (2003). And "[t]he words of an initiative will be read `as the average informed lay voter would read [them]." Parents Involved in Cmty. Sch. , 149 Wash.2d at 671, 72 P.3d 151 (some alterations in original) (quoting W. Petro. Imps., Inc. v. Friedt , 127 Wn.2d 420, 424, 899 P.2d 792 (1995)).

¶ 17 Under SMC 7.45.010(M)(2)(a)(b), a transportation employer is "any person who: ... [o]perates or provides rental car services utilizing or operating a fleet of more than one hundred (100) cars ... and [e]mploys twenty-five (25) or more nonmanagerial, nonsupervisory employees in the performance of that operation." The parties stipulated that GCA employed a workforce of 25 or more nonmanagerial, nonsupervisory employees and that Avis's fleet at Sea-Tac Airport included more than 100 rental cars. And the appellants do not appear to assert that GCA operated rental car services.

[484 P.3d 512]

Accordingly, the issue is whether GCA provided rental car services. But the ordinance does not define those terms. And when an ordinance does not define a term, we utilize the dictionary definition to inform the ordinance's plain meaning. See Lyft, Inc. v. City of Seattle , 190 Wn.2d 769, 781, 418 P.3d 102 (2018) (defining a term by "its usual and ordinary dictionary definition" where the statute provided no definition); Seattle Hous. Auth. , 3 Wash. App. 2d at 539-40, 416 P.3d 1280 (using the dictionary definition to define a term, which the at-issue ordinance did not define).

¶ 18 First, the dictionary defines (1) "rental" as "something rented," (2) "rent" as "a piece of property that the owner allows another to use in exchange for a payment in services, kind, or money," and (3) "services" as "to perform any of the business functions auxiliary to production or distribution of." WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 1923, 2075 (2002). The dictionary defines "provide" as "to fit out or fit up: EQUIP" or "to supply for use." WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 1827 (2002). The average informed lay voter likely understands "provides" to mean "to supply for use." And "our focus must be on reading the language of the ordinance in a commonsense manner." Faciszewski v. Brown , 187 Wn.2d 308, 320, 386 P.3d 711 (2016).

¶ 19 Given the dictionary definitions, the ordinance's ordinary meaning is an employer that supplies vehicles to renters in exchange for a payment or fee. More specifically, a transportation employer that provides rental car services is a business that supplies individuals with the possession and enjoyment of cars in exchange for payments. GCA does not receive a rental fee for its services to Avis, and it does not own the vehicles that Avis rents to individuals in exchange for payment. Indeed, GCA provides nothing in exchange for rent. Therefore, based on the plain meaning, we conclude that GCA is not a transportation employer for purposes of SMC 7.45.010(M)(2) and was not required to pay its employees $15 per hour.

¶ 20 This interpretation is supported by other sections of the ordinance. Specifically, when the ordinance intends to include subcontractors, like GCA, it does so expressly. That is, the definition of "hospitality employer" states that a hospitality employer "shall include ... subcontractor[s]." SMC 7.45.010(D). The ordinance does not include similar language in the definition of transportation employer. And where a statute or ordinance explicitly omits a provision, the court must "give weight and significance to ... the vacancy." See State v. Swanson , 116 Wn.App. 67, 76-77, 65 P.3d 343 (2003) (holding that where the statute does not include a particular requirement for the reinstatement of an individual's firearm rights, no requirement exists). In this context, this principle indicates that, because SMC 7.45.010(M)(2) does not include subcontractors in its definition of transportation employer, it does not apply to subcontractors. Thus, as a subcontractor to Avis, GCA is not subject to the ordinance.

¶ 21 The appellants disagree and contend that we must define "provides" differently than "operates." While we agree, defining the terms differently does not affect our conclusion that the ordinance does not apply to GCA. Specifically, the average informed lay voter likely understands "operate" to mean to "put or keep in operation." WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 1581 (2002). And the definition of "operation" is "the quality or state of being functional." WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 1581 (2002). A common example is that someone "operated a grocery store." See WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 1581 (2002) (italics omitted). Thus, given the ordinary meaning of "operates," a transportation employer who operates rental car services keeps a rental car business functioning. This is distinct from the ordinary definition of "provides" and therefore satisfies the statutory construction rule that "[w]hen the legislature employs different terms in a statute, we presume a different meaning for each term." Koenig v. City of Des Moines , 158 Wn.2d 173, 182, 142 P.3d 162 (2006).

¶ 22 Additionally, "or" is an inclusive disjunctive because it would lead to a strained result if "or" created an exclusive

[484 P.3d 513]

disjunctive. Specifically, the dictionary defines "`or' as a `function word' indicating `an alternative between different or unlike things.'" Lake v. Woodcreek Homeowners Ass'n , 169 Wn.2d 516, 528, 243 P.3d 1283 (2010) (quoting WEBSTER'S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 1585 (2002). When used as an alternative, "or" is an "inclusive disjunctive—one or more of the unlike things can be true." Lake , 169 Wash.2d at 528, 243 P.3d 1283 (emphasis omitted). However, "or" also can mean "a `choice between alternative things, state, or courses,'" creating an "exclusive disjunctive—one or the other can be true but not both." Lake , 169 Wash.2d at 528, 243 P.3d 1283 (emphasis omitted). We look to "the surrounding context" to determine which meaning is intended. Lake , 169 Wash.2d at 528, 243 P.3d 1283 ("Usually, the intended meaning is apparent from the surrounding context."). Here, if "or" was an exclusive disjunctive, it would mean that if a business provides rental car services, it cannot also operate a rental car services business. The court should "avoid an interpretation that results in unlikely or strained consequences." Swanson , 193 Wash. App. at 811, 373 P.3d 342. Therefore, we conclude that the "or" here connects two different verbs, either or both of which may be true.

¶ 23 The appellants also contend that, because SMC 7.45.010 is a remedial ordinance, we must construe it liberally. To this end, they contend that by concluding that employers like GCA are not subject to the ordinance, we would "eviscerate the ordinance." The ordinance's explanatory statement provides that the ordinance will require "certain hotels, restaurants, rental car businesses, shuttle transportation businesses, parking businesses, and various airport related businesses, including temporary agencies or subcontractors operating within the City," to provide employees a $15 per hour wage, "a living wage." But, as discussed, the ordinary definition of transportation employer does not apply to GCA as a matter of law. That is, a liberal construction does not change the commonsense understanding of rental car services, which does not include shuttle driving services like those offered by GCA. Therefore, the appellants' contention fails.

¶ 24 Next, the appellants assert that because Avis's new subcontractor, Fleet Logics, pays its employees $15 per hour, GCA was required to do so. Fleet Logics' decision to pay its employees $15 per hour does not control this court's decision. It also is not persuasive. Specifically, there is no basis to conclude that, because Fleet Logics pays its employees $15 per hour, either it or GCA is legally required to do so. Therefore, the appellants' assertion fails.

¶ 25 Finally, the appellants contend that the trial court erred because it failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to them. To this end, they cite GCA's "admissions" that it provides rental car services. However, any factual evidence does not affect our interpretation of the ordinance. And the appellants do not dispute the services that GCA provided to Avis. Our analysis focuses on the undisputed factual evidence regarding those services, and GCA's characterization does not change our determination. In short, no inferences were drawn to conclude that GCA does not provide rental car services. Therefore, this contention is without merit.

¶ 26 We affirm the 2019 Order granting summary judgment in favor of GCA, dismissing the complaint in its entirety. The remainder of this opinion has no precedential value. Therefore, it will be filed for public record in accordance with the rules governing unpublished opinions. See RCW 2.06.040.

WE CONCUR:

[484 P.3d 514]

Coburn, J.

Chun, J.