more generous than what the aid sickleave statute requires instead at the heart of this case are two different provisions that were negotiated nationwide and c b s that ensure that employees do not abuse their sick leave in a manner that leaves airlines without enough crew to fly a plane consistent with better regulations one of those is medical medical verification which simply allows air carriers to asked to verify sick leave when they suspect abuse and that's deters such abuse for obvious reasons the other one is no fault liability policies contrary to the state's unsupported assertion these are not draconian policies that punish employees for taking normal amounts of sick leave there instead decide and design to discourage systemic most obviously very short notice or no notice a causes airline delays and cancellations p s l perforce reports to prevent airlines from those negotiated policies but those p s l provisions are both preempted by the a b a and unconstitutional under the commerce clause because the evidence shows that they w court precedent holding that the assumption doesn't apply to express preemption provisions and this court's holding in korean air that the presumption doesn't apply to airline regulation it held that neutral general applicability aren't preempted contrary to supreme guarantee of good faith and fair dealing in woollens the rule was just a general illinois consumer fraud statute alice was just a general you know the unfair business practices law this cour case in korean error would jools opinion korean air was about gentle state unfair competition law it is so so that is it might be true that in some circumstances general rules so i think the government's position should be taken seriously and what the government said in that case was that that case was about anyone respirators and what the government said in that case is that the difference between deals and a case like this one is  st of all dilts was about intrust state trucking routes and so there wasn't any there wasn't any risk of a patchwork of regulations or anything like that because obviously the trucks mass delivery against coakley there's a recent case to wage an hour long cold brindle against rhode island from the rhode island supreme court i'm not sure that this court has had occasion to to consider a case where the standard is a significant impact on oil prices routes or services unless the impact what is not significant is an impact that council is that is tenuous remote or poor for a referral it can't be against airlines that when the law is being enforced against the airlines in a way that has a substantial impact on prices routes or services it's preempted and that's true here for the reasons of the government explained bill unlike with trucking routes where half an hour delay doesn't substantially impact the route airline routes st of all are tightly choreographed with the f a a with the airports and the like and so one airline just can't you know change schedule just read i mean it says significant effect even if in direct right and so and so the question is is there a significant effect even if indirect in this case or is the is or is the effect you know tenuous or peripheral in it and it seems to me that both as a as an evidentiary matter and as a logical matter the the line from the p s l to the lays and cancellations in flights is direct it was the whole point as i understand it is that the state's argument is more people will know but will take stick leave and thus not show up to flights right and certainly that can exclude the kind of disruptive sickly vet that we're worried about which is parts of deals i think it's clear that dilts isn't saying that that is the only kind of law that can be preempted and just can't be true because there's because the supreme court precedent like morale is like woolens like ginsburg doesn't doesn't bind he took the top twenty five days is where are highest days of sick leave and showed after running a regression that there was a statistically significant increase on those days of that's going to result in delays and cancellations and i don't want to forget to mention that not not only delays and cancellations but the operational arms having to comply with a different excuse me with with with  as i understand it it just has not been enforced yet my understanding is that alaska is complying as the ground crew but not as to like and that just informally are what i thought the law in effect is that not here the whole is in effect my is you know i'm not sure because a the court knows that there's a there's a very difficult to apply to and cart test you know we argued about that in in this sort of patchwork argument i want to emphasize but say an extra two and a half minutes so stacey set the clock for three minutes for a bottle that will  attendants and communicational workers salute the court is very interested in hearing both the perspectives of the state agency and the perspectives of leave contributes to the public health protections to family stability and economic security by preventing the costly spread of disease and the loss of wages by workers this court should affirm the district court's and rd washington's paid sick leave law does not bind the carrier to a particularly great road or service i'd like to address the question about whether it washington law is in effect it is an alaska airlines has chosen to flout the law but we have not engaged in a force in action because we haven't received any complaints typically the department investigates upon complaint and we haven't received a complaint t deregulation after the companion act but the whole purpose of airline deregulation act is to allow for competition and that's the reason for the binding if you take away the to be able to set your own rules and maybe have to make adjustments does not constitute a violation under deals where the same arguments were made about groups and costs that were rejected imagine that also addresses that in that it said it was an interesting idea and effective transportation outside the outside the state the patchwork unless there was a connection to a price route or service which there hasn't been shown so the patchwork argument was rejected by the court  that there were a couple of other cases one called warrant no one called the car one of the valving arrow on the other involving truck that deal with similar  commerce clause twenty and i wonder whether our panel in this case should be deferring submission until those they bring it out and gentilly in terms of arguing that burden under the commerce clause as well i think of that washington has a washington based washington based test where if you're in an your normal stream of argument we just ask stacey to add two minutes of time from ms sandstrom on logical knowledge and then we'll have an extra two minutes for economic stability by providing sick leave to workers so they don't lose pay by reducing strain on hospital that preventing shutdown of businesses and the law you look to the benefit that the law provides the fact that an employer might have provided some of that benefit in advance doesn't change the public policy particularly when you're looking at a law like this that was passed city wide in all industries so it does provide sick leave and the benefit that they receive from alaska is just that it's a collective bargaining agreement which is a private agreement that can be waive compensation and that they didn't have a business in washington and that was all stipulated to by the by the airlines and except for alaska which had to stipulate that engine business in washington that had a corporate headquarters so it's just simply not understanding the context of the case that there could be other airlines that are subject to and within the confines of this case the only airline that we share connected to washington was alaska which leads to a very important point in that this applies to alaska which is ringback and anyone that's an employer a washington based employer washing base employees so interstate employers and the commerce guys is meant to guard against protectionism and there is no protectionism here because airlines are off the hook it's the washington employers that are subject to the law the whole purpose of the dharma karma is met because there's no protectionism so why conflicts and they use multi factor test in the complex which is just shows how this is business as usual for corporate corporations they do business all across the country and they have to use  their industries the airlines themselves have a target of fifteen to twenty percent delay that's their business model they have a seventy nine percent average for a delay that's the business model for them to suddenly say oh if we have a little marginal increase of delay that that's something that upsets interstate commerce and upsets the interstate market is simply refusing to understand that they themselves have chosen a business model of delay so there is significant impact under the there is no substantial burden under the dharma karma cars analysis because it's just part and parcel of what they do which is to have a model of fifteen to twenty percent delay and a mad thank you very much your honor may have please the court there and down that on by the association of flight attendants and like to begin by addressing some of the questions that have been raised and if i have time address what i think is the standard and supreme court authority and i think that a for a of all parties should know otherwise because it was in its lawsuit against the city of san francisco almost twenty years ago now that this court and i also to supreme court authority there roe to reinforce that it correctly interpreted the relating to preemption to require a binding or olds re effect and there  is focus on the portion of roe that noted that the delivery services required by maine's law that required verification would have been frozen in place so it had a binding effect on  very particular service there's no evidence in this record at all that shows that any airline that complies with washington's paid sick leave law is bound to provide a particular rate router service in fact the testimony from almost every airline representative in this case is that they don't even consider sick leave when they're doing their network planning when they're making fair planning  and revenue so i think that foley responds to mister molinsky point certainly his client is dissatisfied with the binding standard but that has been law of this circuit firmly grounded in supreme court law for nearly twenty  years judge globe your question about warden if i understood it correctly oman but the cases involving united and delta and if i misunderstood let me know i don't think it would be appropriate to defer resolution of this case which has been a need for many years st of all no party has asked for that kind of relief and i'm not sure what the basis for it would be but even setting that aside the questions well in some sense sound under similar claims of dharmic commerce clause involve very different laws wage statement law in the word case not at issue here this is a paid sick leave love with very different public health benefits in a time of a pandemic i think it's it's those benefits are more pronounced than ever before and delaine flight crews ability to have sick leave that is not just on paper  just a contractual right to a crew but then you're penalized when you use it but to have a right made manifest in reality as washington law guarantees because you're protected against retaliation or when you use we believe we do currently have this projection but there are lines of chosen to sue for their own reasons and they've been a loud on it so they're the ones who have brought this issue to the courts i mean i agree with you it usually unless there's a it has to appeal the law does it in fact while the appeal happens it could change later if we roll the other way but in the meantime i don't understand how your clients face the urgency because right now the law is in your favor that's true and except that alaska is simply not complying with this but but i agree with your honor that the law is in effect now and it's been sustained by judge layton quite appropriately so  so i think it isn't forcible and i do you have any idea why there haven't been complaints the status and they're not doing anything about the lack of compliance because no one has complained so does that indicate that no one actually need protection or  what do we draw from the idea that no one has complained i don't think you can draw anything from that other than the airlines have not made a showing of any burden in any concrete situation they're seeking to failed to carry that burden with the minute that i have left if i may i think that the easiest way to resolve the dormant commerce clause is by focusing exclusively on the benefits and the reason for that is because when cords apply pike to cases involving interstate transportation they often begin improperly and with an inquiry into whether the state law operates in practice to undermine its own ordinances and fuel regulations and city of long beach and pacific mercian shipping association the airlines have presented no evidence at all they compliance with the aids sick leave law makes the public sick destabilize families or makes washington based employees economically insecure and because they have not shown that the paid sick leave law itself undermining this court doesn't even need to address the very minimal benefits question of whether we submitted evidence of burden i think i listed off a bunch of evidence that we submitted in my opening argument that there was any response to it again we submitted evidence of versions experience t same thing here we don't disagree that there are some benefits to simply all but this is an as applied challenge in the airlines will provide sufficient sickleave the question is whether there's benefits to the provisions that actually impose a substantial impact burden on interstate commerce they are the ones contrary to mister elements argument they have to provide some evidence that evidence so of the local benefit that there is not a single line in the record about why precluding america airlines from seeking medical verification would benefit anybody and while there are a few affidavits in the record that about the no fault the liability policies what they're really talking about is probation periods where people don't get paid for sick leave at all and in any event include but are not limited to the delays and cancellations that will ripple through airlines national networks as as we've shown and as the district court just decided to do is believe the argument th was limited to interest rates a drop in and was not about airlines the impact of even small changes in schedule on airlines is just a completely different time then on trucking routes and the government explain that throughout the entire national network nothing like that happens with trucking networks and so it's just a different kind of analysis as applied to airlines oh and one on one other point if i could but the idea is we agree that th ag is about making sure the competitive market forces apply and govern operations but it's just not true that if you let this law go forward that back airlines will be able to run the that they want under the market again but in shows that routes will be substantially delayed and canceled and again and escalating throughout the entire national network and that is entre to what the market will what the market what it would allow is what the airlines and their unions have negotiated under the collective bargaining under their collective bargaining  washington counsel in new york counsel and the panel really appreciate it seth that all of us remember being advocates we know it's