Opinion ID: 2622018
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: The Act Violates the Post Home's Equal Protection Guaranty

Text: ś 125 The majority recognizes the essence of the claimed equal protection violation by observing the Act excludes `a private enclosed workplace, within a public place,' but the Act does not, by its terms, apply to private enclosed workplaces in private places, majority at 317-18 (quoting RCW 70.160.060). Yet the majority fails to address the clear equal protection violation obvious from its observation. [29] ś 126 If the Act distinguishes between private enclosed workplaces in public places and private enclosed workplaces in private places, what is the reason to make this public/private distinction? If none, this public/private distinction is `wholly irrelevant to achievement of legitimate state objectives.' Heiskell, 129 Wash.2d at 124, 916 P.2d 366 (quoting State v. Shawn P., 122 Wash.2d 553, 561, 859 P.2d 1220 (1993)). ś 127 Before analyzing the equal protection violation, let us revisit the majority's interpretation of RCW 70.160.060. The majority reasons RCW 70.160.060 permits smoking in a manager's back office. Majority at 318. This may be true, but RCW 70.160.060 is not so narrowly written as to apply only to back offices. RCW 70.160.060 permits smoking in a private enclosed workplace, within a public place, even though such workplace may be visited by nonsmokers. . . . Workplace is not defined in the statute, but commonly means a place . . . where work is done. [30] Work is done by employees or employers. [31] Moreover, RCW 70.160.060 makes no distinction between an employee or nonemployee but permits smoking even though the workplace may be visited by nonsmokers. The only restriction appears to be employees must not be required to pass through during the course of employment.. . . RCW 70.160.020(3). [32] ś 128 The Act distinguishes between two classes of workplaces, permitting smoking in one workplace, but not another. The majority claims the Act permits smoking in a private enclosed workplace, within a public place, but not in a private place. RCW 70.160.060 (emphasis added). I find this distinction perplexing. ś 129 `Under the rational basis test the court must determine: . . . whether there are reasonable grounds to distinguish between those within and those without the class. . . .' Griffin v. Eller, 130 Wash.2d 58, 65, 922 P.2d 788 (1996) (quoting Convention Ctr. Coal. v. City of Seattle, 107 Wash.2d 370, 378-79, 730 P.2d 636 (1986)). ś 130 The following hypothetical elucidates the equal protection violation. Suppose two taverns have a private enclosed workplace adjacent to the primary workplace. This enclosed workplace is private in the sense that it is completely separated from the primary bar, work is performed there, and it is intended for or restricted to the use of a particular person or group or class of persons: not freely available to the public. [33] Now suppose the first bar is called Moe's Tavern and open to anyone, but the second is called The American Legion Post Home and only open to members. Smoking can occur at Moe's Tavern in its private enclosed workplace but it cannot occur at the American Legion Post Home in its private enclosed workplace simply because it is private? I can imagine no reason for this distinction, and I challenge the majority to posit one.