475 P.3d 164
Wash.2020Background
- Plaintiffs Jose Martinez-Cuevas and Patricia Aguilar were DeRuyter Brothers Dairy milkers who, together with a certified class of about 300 dairy workers, alleged unpaid overtime and other wage-and-hour violations and challenged RCW 49.46.130(2)(g), which exempts agricultural employees from overtime under the Washington Minimum Wage Act (MWA).
- DeRuyter milkers worked long, often >40-hour weeks in continuous, mechanized dairy operations with documented elevated injury risks; plaintiffs argued the exemption denies health/safety protections and discriminates against largely Latinx dairy workers.
- The trial court granted partial summary judgment for the workers, finding the exemption granted a privilege or immunity violating article I, section 12, and reserved the question whether the legislature had reasonable grounds for the exemption.
- The Washington State Dairy Federation and Washington Farm Bureau intervened; the trial court’s summary judgment order was reviewed by the Supreme Court on discretionary review.
- The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court as to article I, section 12: it held RCW 49.46.130(2)(g) (as applied to dairy workers) grants an impermissible privilege or immunity because article II, section 35 creates a fundamental right to legislative protections for workers in dangerous employments; the Court remanded for entry of summary judgment and awarded attorney fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RCW 49.46.130(2)(g) grants a privilege/immunity in violation of Wash. Const. art. I, § 12 | Exemption denies dairy workers overtime protections and thus grants a privilege to agricultural employers that infringes a fundamental right | Exemption does not implicate a fundamental right and is a permissible legislative classification | Court: exemption (as applied to dairy workers) grants a privilege/immunity and violates art. I, § 12 |
| Whether art. II, § 35 creates a fundamental right to statutory health/safety protections for workers in dangerous employments | "Shall pass necessary laws" imposes a mandatory duty and creates a fundamental right to protections like overtime | Dissent: provision is non–self-executing; legislature has discretion to determine necessary laws, so no fundamental right | Court: art. II, § 35 imposes a duty and supports treating worker-protection laws as implicating fundamental rights |
| Equal protection and racial-motive claim | Exemption perpetuates a racialized underclass (historic federal origins and disparate impact on Latinx farmworkers); strict or heightened scrutiny should apply | No evidence of discriminatory purpose in Washington’s enactment; classification is facially neutral and rationally related to legitimate ends | Majority: did not reach equal protection because art. I, § 12 remedy resolved the case; dissent would apply rational-basis review and reject challenge |
| Remedy, fees, and retroactivity | Plaintiffs seek summary judgment, wages, and attorney fees; request retroactive relief | Defendants ask for prospective-only application of any adverse ruling | Court: remanded for entry of summary judgment for plaintiffs and awarded attorney fees; retroactivity/prospective relief not decided by majority (separately debated by concurrence and dissent) |
Key Cases Cited
- Schroeder v. Weighall, 179 Wn.2d 566 (Wash. 2014) (describing the two-step privileges-or-immunities reasonable-ground analysis under art. I, § 12)
- Grant County Fire Prot. Dist. No. 5 v. City of Moses Lake, 150 Wn.2d 791 (Wash. 2004) (distinguishing article I, § 12 analysis and noting when independent analysis is required)
- Anfinson v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 174 Wn.2d 851 (Wash. 2012) (discussing the MWA’s remedial purpose and statutory definitions drawn from federal law)
- Macias v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 100 Wn.2d 263 (Wash. 1983) (rejecting disparate-impact statistics alone to trigger strict scrutiny absent evidence of purposeful discrimination)
- Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356 (U.S. 1886) (facially neutral law applied with discriminatory purpose violates equal protection)
- Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (U.S. 1960) (legislative actions that isolate a racial group for discriminatory treatment offend constitutional protections)
- Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (U.S. 1977) (disparate impact may support an inference of discriminatory intent only in limited circumstances)
- Parrish v. West Coast Hotel Co., 300 U.S. 379 (U.S. 1937) (upholding wage-and-hour regulation as a valid exercise of the police power)
- Ventenbergs v. City of Seattle, 163 Wn.2d 92 (Wash. 2008) (discussing limits on recognizing fundamental rights of state citizenship where the subject is within legislative/local government prerogative)