Opinion ID: 1169785
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: does rcw 42.17.680(2) apply?

Text: Nelson asserts that RCW 42.17.680(2) applies. We agree. RCW 42.17.680(2) states in full: No employer or labor organization may discriminate against an officer or employee in the terms or conditions of employment for (a) the failure to contribute to, (b) the failure in any way to support or oppose, or (c) in any way supporting or opposing a candidate, ballot proposition, political party, or political committee. (Emphasis added.) Nelson asserts the statute is clear on its face and applies in her case. A fundamental rule of construction is, absent ambiguity, the plain wording of the statute controls. Anderson v. City of Seattle, 123 Wash.2d 847, 851, 873 P.2d 489 (1994). Thus, the statute prohibits discrimination based on an employee's supporting or opposing a candidate, ballot proposition, political party, or political committee. RCW 42.17.680(2). The issue is whether an employee who is discriminated against for refusing to abstain from political involvement fits within the statutory language of someone removed for supporting or opposing a ballot initiative, political party or committee. There is little outside guidance on the meaning of the provision in question and there is no case law interpreting the statute. The original version of the initiative came out of the state senate as Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 5864, and the legislative history of intent is scarce there as well. A staff memo circulated to the senate committee originally overseeing the bill stated that, amongst other things, the bill would prohibit employers from discriminat[ing] against employees on the basis of their political activity. Senate Comm. Staff Memorandum, Campaign Contributions & Expenditures: Highlights of Proposed Sub. S.B. 5864, at 2 (Mar. 5, 1991). Newspaper articles and editorials [4] published during the 1992 election season uniformly fail to mention this particular provision nor does the voter's pamphlet in its description of or the statements for and against the law. In all, the provision now before the court seems to have gone largely unnoticed. Nelson urges that the plain language of the statute supports her position. And, in circumspect, one may also find support for her position in the subsection preceding the one at issue. Subsection (2)(b) states that no employer may discriminate against an employee for the failure in any way to support or oppose a candidate, ballot proposition, political party, or political committee. RCW 42.17.680(2)(b). Subsection (2)(c), at issue here, states that no employer may discriminate against an employee for in any way supporting or opposing a candidate, ballot proposition, political party, or political committee. RCW 42.17.680(2)(c). Logically, subsection (2)(b) would apply when the employee fails to adopt and support the employer's political position, whereas subsection (2)(c) would apply when the employee refuses to abstain from political activity. It is difficult to imagine what subsection (2)(c) would mean if not what Nelson claims. Adopting TNT's reading that the statute does not apply when the employer merely requires political abstinence is contrary to the text of subsection (2)(c). [5] TNT, on the other hand, asserts that the provision should be read in context. Nationwide Papers, Inc. v. Northwest Egg Sales, Inc., 69 Wash.2d 72, 76, 416 P.2d 687 (1966) (Language within a statute must be read in context with the entire statute and construed in a manner consistent with the general purposes of the statute.). [6] TNT asserts that when read in context, the provision has a narrower meaning and will apply only when an employer attempts to strong-arm an employee into adopting its political position. The trial court agreed with TNT and held the statute applies only when the employer requires an employee to adopt its political position and does not apply when the employer merely requires political neutrality of its employees. Initiative 134 which contains the provision in question was aimed at repairing the political process through campaign finance reform. [7] The primary change proposed by the initiative was the imposition of contribution limits that individuals and entities could give per candidate per election. The initiative also sought to prohibit contributions from one candidate's campaign to another, forbid public funding of campaigns, limit the repayment of loans taken out while campaigning, and prohibit fundraising by legislators during session. The official ballot title asked: Shall campaign contributions be limited; public funding of state and local campaigns be prohibited; and campaign related activities be restricted? 1992 Voters Pamphlet, Initiative Measure 134, at 8. One of the stated purposes of the initiative was to prevent financially strong organizations from exercising a disproportionate or controlling influence on elections. RCW 42.17.610(1). In 1993, the initiative became codified under the heading of Campaign Contribution Limitations under chapter 42.17 RCW, the public disclosure act, the purpose of which is to inform the public of campaign and lobbying contributions and to help ensure, through disclosure, the integrity of government. See Cowles Publishing Co. v. State Patrol, 109 Wash.2d 712, 719, 748 P.2d 597 (1988). TNT argues the statutory provision in question was not intended to apply as Nelson asserts. Washington already has a labor law statute forbidding discrimination against an employee on the basis of age, sex, marital status, race, creed, color, national origin, or physical handicap. RCW 49.60.180. Nelson's reading, TNT argues, in effect creates an additional category, that of political activist, but would locate it in the campaign finance reform law rather than in labor or other civil rights laws. [8] TNT argues if creation of such a broad right was intended, why was it quietly slipped into campaign finance reform? But TNT's interpretation does not track the text of the act. When read in context this law has a clear relation to the rest of the campaign finance reform act; it is meant to prevent employers from wielding their might to influence politics and elections. The law is part of campaign finance, not civil rights or labor law. Taken as a whole, the provision in question means that employers may not disproportionately influence politics by forcing their employees to support their position or by attempting to force political abstinence on politically active employees. The law is designed to restrict organizations from wielding political influence by manipulating the political influence of their employees through employment decisions. Moreover, TNT's reading essentially renders the provision in question meaningless as RCW 42.17.680(2)(b) already covers the interpretation urged by TNT. Nisqually Delta Ass'n v. City of DuPont, 95 Wash.2d 563, 568, 627 P.2d 956 (1981) (whenever possible, courts should avoid a statutory construction which nullifies, voids, or renders meaningless or superfluous any section or words). We hold RCW 42.17.680(2) applies to the present case and substantial evidence supports its application. We now turn to the constitutional issue which we find dispositive.