Opinion ID: 2584210
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Does LEOFF's right to sue provision violate Washington's privileges and immunities clause?

Text: ¶ 14 The City also contends that the LEOFF right to sue provision violates Washington's privileges and immunities clause. The City has no rights of its own under the privileges and immunities clause, and it has not established standing to assert the rights of any other person or entity. ¶ 15 Washington's privileges and immunities clause provides, No law shall be passed granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal, privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens, or corporations. WASH. CONST. art. I, § 12. Where the text of a constitutional provision is plain, the court must give the language its reasonable interpretation without further construction. Larson v. Seattle Popular Monorail Auth., 156 Wash.2d 752, 757-58, 131 P.3d 892 (2006). By its express language, article I, section 12 does not apply to municipal corporations. [1] ¶ 16 The City contends that article I, section 12 is violated by RCW 41.26.281 because while the City must pay workers' compensation benefits, the statute prevents it from enjoying like immunity under the Industrial Insurance Act with other employers. This is a claim that the City has been denied immunity enjoyed by other employers and that it therefore is not treated equally. As a municipal corporation, the City is not entitled to make this claim under article I, section 12. ¶ 17 The City also maintains that fire fighters and police officers should not enjoy special rights that do not belong to other employees, i.e., the right to sue the City. However, the City does not show how it has standing to complain about this asserted unequal treatment. The case chiefly relied on by the City, Alton V. Phillips Co. v. State, 65 Wash.2d 199, 396 P.2d 537 (1964), involved a special enactment that allowed one specific contractor to sue the State notwithstanding statutes of limitations. The State was allowed to challenge the unconstitutionality of the statute under article I, section 12. But Alton V. Phillips involved a suit against the State, not against a municipal corporation. It does not support the City's standing in this case. [2] Because the City does not have standing to bring a privileges and immunities claim, we do not address that claim here.