Macias v. Labor Industries

19 Citing cases

  1. Martinez-Cuevas v. DeRuyter Bros. Dairy

    196 Wash. 2d 506 (Wash. 2020)   Cited 26 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Martinez-Cuevas, the Supreme Court held that the statutory right to exempt dairy workers from overtime pay constituted an impermissible privilege or immunity granted to agricultural employers.

    ยถ 25 The extremely dangerous nature of dairy work entitles dairy workers to the statutory protection set out in article II, section 35. See Macias v. Dep't of Labor & Indus. , 100 Wash.2d 263, 274, 668 P.2d 1278 (1983) (noting that farmworkers engage in "an extremely dangerous occupation").

  2. Mayo v. National Farmers Union Property

    833 P.2d 54 (Colo. 1992)   Cited 12 times
    Recognizing a right to intrastate travel that does not include a fundamental right to drive an automobile on state highways

    Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U.S. 250, 269 (1974) (invalidated durational residency requirement for receipt of medical care by indigents); Dunn, 405 U.S. at 338-39 (invalidated one-year state residency requirement for exercise of right to vote); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 629 (1969) (invalidated one-year state residency requirement for eligibility for welfare benefits); Jeffrey v. Colorado State Dept. of Social Servs., 198 Colo. 265, 269, 599 P.2d 874, 877 (1979) (invalidated thirty-five-year continuous residency requirement for pension benefits). The Mayos rely on the case of Macias v. Department of Labor and Industries, 668 P.2d 1278 (Wash. 1983), to support their argument that the statute and the household exclusion clause infringe upon their fundamental right to travel. In Macias, the Supreme Court of Washington considered an equal protection challenge to a statute that excluded migrant workers from workers' compensation coverage unless a worker earned at least $150 in a single calendar year from the employer in whose employ the worker suffered injury.

  3. Sanchez v. Labor Industries

    39 Wn. App. 80 (Wash. Ct. App. 1984)   Cited 4 times

    Generally, a law will survive that scrutiny if a distinction "rationally furthers a legitimate state purpose [Rational Relation Test]." Zobel, 457 U.S. at 60; see also Macias v. Department of Labor Indus., 100 Wn.2d 263, 267-68, 668 P.2d 1278 (1983). Whenever a legislative classification involves "a fundamental right", such as free speech, or creates "a suspect classification", for example, race, the so-called strict scrutiny test is, instead, applied as the standard of review.

  4. Potter v. City of Lacey

    46 F.4th 787 (9th Cir. 2022)   Cited 15 times

    To date, no Washington case has held that a right to intrastate travel exists under Washington state lawโ€”to the extent Washington courts have found a right to intrastate travel, they have done so under only the United States Constitution. Potter grounds his Washington State intrastate travel claim in Eggert v. City of Seattle , 81 Wash.2d 840, 505 P.2d 801 (1973), and Macias v. Dep't of Lab. & Indus. , 100 Wash.2d 263, 668 P.2d 1278 (1983), but we conclude that neither case answers this question. In Eggert , the Washington Supreme Court recognized a right to intrastate travel, but solely based on the United States Constitution.

  5. Harris v. Labor Industries

    120 Wn. 2d 461 (Wash. 1993)   Cited 71 times
    Holding that โ€œ retirement program should be construed liberally in favor of the retired workerโ€

    Harris argues that intermediate or strict scrutiny ought to apply to the legislative classifications created by RCW 51.32.225. The case which she relies most heavily on, Macias v. Department of Labor Indus., 100 Wn.2d 263, 668 P.2d 1278 (1983), is easily distinguishable from this case. In Macias workers alleged that a statute which required seasonal workers to earn $150 from each employer to be eligible for workers' compensation violated equal protection.

  6. Roy v. Everett

    118 Wn. 2d 352 (Wash. 1992)   Cited 17 times

    In either case, a statute that is facially neutral, but allegedly results in an unequal application of the law, does not violate the equal protection guaranties of the state or federal constitution unless the party challenging the statute shows an element of intentional or purposeful discrimination. Macias v. Department of Labor Indus., 100 Wn.2d 263, 269-70, 668 P.2d 1278 (1983); State v. Nixon, 10 Wn. App. 355, 358, 517 P.2d 212 (1973), review denied, 83 Wn.2d 1014 (1974). Roy and the amici concede that RCW 10.99.070 is facially neutral, but they contend that a broad interpretation of the immunity provision violates equal protection under the state and federal constitutions because the majority of the victims of domestic abuse are women.

  7. Aitken v. City of Aberdeen

    393 F. Supp. 3d 1075 (W.D. Wash. 2019)   Cited 7 times

    However, the Washington Supreme Court has held that the right to intrastate travel is protected by both the U.S. and Washington State Constitutions. Eggert v. City of Seattle , 81 Wash. 2d 840, 845, 505 P.2d 801 (1973) (reasoning that the right to travel in the U.S. Constitutional applies within states); Macias v. Dep't of Labor & Indus. of State of Wash. , 100 Wash. 2d 263, 275, 668 P.2d 1278 (1983) (holding without further explanation that the Washington Constitution's privileges and immunities clause supports a right to travel based on equal protection of the law).In Pottinger v. City of Miami , the Southern District of Florida applied the right to travel to enjoin city ordinances that criminalized conduct essential to life as a homeless person.

  8. Griffin v. Eller

    130 Wn. 2d 58 (Wash. 1996)   Cited 44 times
    In Griffin, the Washington Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff employee's sexual harassment and retaliation claims under the Washington Law Against Discrimination.

    This classification fails under both the strict scrutiny and rational basis standards. See Macias v. Department of Labor Indus., 100 Wn.2d 263, 668 P.2d 1278 (1983) (statute barring coverage under Washington's Industrial Insurance Act for employees who did not earn $150 in a calendar year violates equal protection because of its disparate impact on Hispanic farm workers and its adverse effect on the fundamental right to travel; court rejected the employers' argument the exclusion of those earning $150 or less a year was necessary because of the additional administrative burden on employers).

  9. Caminiti v. Boyle

    107 Wn. 2d 662 (Wash. 1987)   Cited 31 times
    In Caminiti, we considered whether a statute that allowed DNR to authorize no-cost residential docks abutting state tidelands and shorelands violated the public trust.

    .Macias v. Department of Labor Indus., 100 Wn.2d 263, 273, 668 P.2d 1278 (1983). See 2 Rotunda, Nowak Young, Treatise on Constitutional Law: Substance and Procedure ยง 18.38, at 680 (1986).

  10. Kustura v. Labor

    142 Wn. App. 655 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 28 times
    In Kustura v. Department of Labor & Industries, 142 Wn.App. 655, 673, 175 P.3d 1117 (2008), affd on other grounds, 169 Wn.2d 81 (2010), Division One of our court held that a failure to appeal is excused when the claimant cites "extraordinary circumstances preventing [him] from receiving the order[] or timely challenging [it]."

    It reflects the reality that these are the primary languages spoken both in this state and in the United States.Soberal-Perez, 717 F.2d at 41-42; Macias v. Dep't of Labor Indus., 100 Wn.2d 263, 270-71, 668 P.2d 1278 (1983).