Jama et al v. GCA Services Group, Inc.

Filing 24

ORDER granting defendant's 12 Motion for Summary Judgment by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (PM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8

ABDIKHADAR JAMA, et al.,

9
10
11
12

Plaintiffs,
Case No. C16-0331RSL
v.
GCA SERVICES GROUP, INC.,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendant.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

This matter comes before the Court on “Defendant GCA Services Group, Inc.’s
Motion for Summary Judgment.” Dkt. # 12. Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint
alleging that their employer failed to pay an hourly rate of $15.00 after January 1, 2014,
when Chapter 7.45 of the City of SeaTac Municipal Code went into effect. GCA Services
argues that it does not fall within the definition of “Transportation Employer” and is
therefore not subject to the ordinance. It seeks summary dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims.
The facts are not in dispute. At the time the ordinance went into effect, GCA
Services had a contract with Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC, to transport Avis’ rental cars
between and among Avis’ various Seattle-area locations, including the airport rental

24
25
26

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 1

1

facility, the Tukwila service facility, local rental facilities, and Zip Car locations.1

2

Plaintiffs transporting cars to and from the airport facility occasionally interacted with

3

Avis customers, in which case they were expected to act professionally and to provide

4

assistance as needed, such as loading suitcases and luggage into the airport shuttle, giving

5

directions, and helping customers locate items left in the rental cars.2 Plaintiffs were, at all

6

relevant times, employees of GCA Services.

7

The ordinance was passed by voter initiative in 2013. It requires certain hospitality

8

and transportation employers in the City of SeaTac to pay their employees $15.00 per

9

hour, adjusted annually for inflation, and to guarantee certain other benefits. The issue in

10

this case is whether GCA Services falls within the definition of “Transportation

11

Employer,” which means:

12

1. A person, excluding a certificated air carrier performing services for itself, who:

13

a. Operates or provides within the City any of the following: any curbside
passenger check-in services; baggage check services; wheelchair escort
services; baggage handling; cargo handling; rental luggage cart services;
aircraft interior cleaning; aircraft carpet cleaning; aircraft washing and
cleaning; aviation ground support equipment washing and cleaning; aircraft
water or lavatory services; aircraft fueling; ground transportation
management; or any janitorial and custodial services, facility maintenance
services, security services, or customer service performed in any facility
where any of the services listed in this subsection are also performed; and

14
15
16
17
18
19

b. Employs twenty-five (25) or more nonmanagerial, nonsupervisory

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

1

GCA employees also transported vehicles from the Tukwila service facility to local
markets for auction.
2

For purposes of this motion for summary judgment, the Court accepts as true Mr.
Mahamed’s description of his job duties and assumes that many GCA Services’ employees
performed similar tasks that were collateral to their vehicle shuttling duties. No additional
discovery is necessary to resolve the legal issues raised by defendant’s motion.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 2

1
2

employees in the performance of that service.
2. A transportation employer also includes any person who:

3
a. Operates or provides rental car services utilizing or operating a fleet of
more than one hundred (100) cars; shuttle transportation utilizing or
operating a fleet of more than ten (10) vans or buses; or parking lot
management controlling more than one hundred (100) parking spaces; and

4
5
6

b. Employs twenty-five (25) or more nonmanagerial, nonsupervisory
employees in the performance of that operation.

7
8

SeaTac Municipal Code 7.45.010(M).
9
In resolving what is essentially a legal issue of statutory construction, the Court’s
10
“fundamental purpose . . . is to ascertain and carry out the intent of the legislature.” In re
11

Schneider, 173 Wn.2d 353, 363 (2011).3 If, after considering the statute as a whole and

12
related statutes which may shed light on the legislature’s intent with regards to the
13
provision in question, there is no ambiguity, the plain meaning of the statutory language
14
controls. Tracfone Wireless, Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 170 Wn.2d 273, 281 (2010); Dep’t
15
of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC, 146 Wn.2d 1, 11 (2002). If, however, two
16
reasonable interpretations arise from the language of the statute and related statutes, the
17
Court may resort to the rules of statutory construction, relevant legislative history, and
18
case law for assistance in determining the legislature’s intent. Cerrillo v. Esparza, 158
19

Wn.2d 194, 203-04 (2006); Anthis v. Copland, 173 Wn.2d 752, 756 (2012).4

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

3

Voter initiatives are interpreted according to the general rules of statutory construction.
Roe v. TeleTech Customer Care Mgmt. (Colo.), LLC, 152 Wn. App. 388, 396 (2009). The object
of the Court is to ascertain the collective intent of the voters who enacted the measure.
Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587 v. State, 142 Wn.2d 183, 205 (2000).
4

If an ambiguity is found in a voter initiative, the Court may also “examine the
statements in the voters pamphlet in order to determine the voters’ intent.” Amalgamated
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 3

1

Plaintiffs argue that GCA Services is a Transportation Employer because it

2

provides “baggage handling,” “ground transportation management,” and “customer

3

service” in the City of SeaTac. Each term is considered below.

4

A. “Baggage Handling”

5

“Baggage Handling” is not defined in the ordinance, but the term is ordinarily used

6

to mean lifting, moving, loading, and unloading suitcases and luggage for transport. It is

7

undisputed that GCA Services employees occasionally handle baggage in the course of

8

shuttling rental cars from one location to another. It is also undisputed that GCA Services

9

does not operate a baggage handling service, does not hold itself out as providing such

10

services, and has not contracted with Avis to provide such services. The issue is whether

11

the voters intended to regulate any entity whose employees move luggage when they

12

included the term “baggage handling” in Section M.

13

A review of the ordinance as a whole shows that “baggage handling” has a

14

narrower meaning than the one posited by plaintiff. If every person who handled baggage

15

in the course of providing some other service were a baggage handler, there would be no

16

need to include in the list of “Transportation employers” those who provide curbside

17

passenger check-in, baggage check, or rental luggage cart services. Providers of those

18

services handle baggage on a regular basis, and yet Section M includes a specific

19

reference to the services they actually offer – curbside check-in, for example – rather

20

relying on the catch-all term “baggage handler.” Read in context, the activities listed in

21

Section M, such as “baggage handling,” are specific functions or services related to the

22

airline industry. They are job descriptions, not simply a list of tasks. Plaintiff’s preferred

23

construction of “baggage handling” to include every person who handles a piece of

24
25
26

Transit, 142 Wn. 2d at 205.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 4

1

luggage in the City of SeaTac is unreasonable in that it would make many of the activities

2

listed redundant. The Court finds that “baggage handling” under SeaTac Municipal Code

3

7.45.010(M)(1) includes employers who provide baggage handling services as a business

4

venture, generally for a fee or other compensation, not as a one-off activity wholly

5

collateral to the employer’s primary operation. GCA Services operates and provides a

6

vehicle shuttling services: it does not provide baggage handling services for purposes of

7

the ordinance.

8

B. “Ground Transportation Management”

9

This term, like “baggage handling,” is not defined in the ordinance. Plaintiffs offer

10

a syllogistic argument along the lines of “rental cars are ground transportation, GCA

11

Services manages aspects of a rental car fleet, therefore GCA Services manages ground

12

transportation.” See Dkt. # 16 at 2 (“Managing the movement and distribution of rental

13

cars at the airport cannot be considered anything other than ‘ground transportation

14

management.’”). The superficial appeal of this argument cannot be denied: rental cars are

15

generally considered part of the ground transportation system at an airport, and GCA

16

Services was hired to manage on- and off-airport shuttling tasks for the Avis fleet. But

17

plaintiff’s syllogism contains a fallacy in that it presumes that rental car companies,

18

which clearly manage rental cars as part of the airport’s ground transportation, are

19

engaged in “ground transportation management” as the voters used that phrase. The

20

structure of Section M leads to the conclusion that they are not.

21

SeaTac Municipal Code 7.45.010(M)(1) identifies the operators or providers of

22

certain services as “Transportation employers,” including those who provide “ground

23

transportation management.” SeaTac Municipal Code 7.45.010(M)(2) identifies the

24

operators and providers of rental car services as “Transportation employers.” If rental car

25
26

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 5

1

companies fell within the term “ground transportation management,” there would be no

2

need to have a separate section for those who manage rental car fleets. The Court finds

3

that the provision and management of a type of ground transportation service, such as a

4

rental car company, is not the same thing as “ground transportation management” as used

5

in Section M. This conclusion comports with the normal usage of “ground transportation

6

management,” which focuses not on the individual modes of transportation but on

7

tracking and managing the flow of all vehicles within a certain system in order to improve

8

safety, reduce congestion, increase security, and reduce costs. GCA Services does not

9

provide “ground transportation management” for purposes of the ordinance.

10

C. “Customer Service”

11

Plaintiff’s final argument is that, because GCA Services’ employees assisted

12

Avis customers whenever the need arose, GCA Services provided “customer service”

13

within the Sea-Tacoma International Airport (i.e., within the facility where curbside

14

check-in, aircraft refueling, and the other services listed in Section M(1) are performed)

15

and is therefore a “Transportation employer.” As discussed above, however, the list of

16

services in 7.45.010(M)(1) are specific job functions or services provided in the airport. A

17

“Transportation employer” is one who offers or provides that service as a business,

18

usually for compensation. Taking the time to direct someone to the nearest bathroom does

19

not convert a baggage handler into a customer service representative any more than

20

stooping to pick up a discarded coffee cup converts the baggage handler into a janitor.

21

“Customer service,” read in context, is not simply any person who assists a customer

22

while in the airport facility, but rather only those who offer and provide that particular

23

service as part of their business operation. GCA Services operates and provides a vehicle

24

shuttling services: it does not provide customer service for purposes of the ordinance.

25
26

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 6

1
2

D. Certification to the Washington Supreme Court
Pursuant to RCW 2.60.020, “[w]hen in the opinion of any federal court before

3

whom a proceeding is pending, it is necessary to ascertain the local law of this state in

4

order to dispose of such proceeding and the local law has not been clearly determined,

5

such federal court may certify to the supreme court for answer the question of local law

6

involved and the supreme court shall render its opinion in answer thereto.” Given the

7

clarity with which the rules of statutory construction have been established in

8

Washington, the Court finds that further assistance from the state courts is unnecessary.

9

Plaintiff’s alternative request for relief is DENIED.

10
11

For all of the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt.

12

# 12) is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in favor of

13

defendant and against plaintiffs.

14
15

Dated this 3rd day of November, 2016.

16

A

17

Robert S. Lasnik
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT - 7