Aviation West Corp. v. Washington Department of Labor
(Statute Challenge, WA Sup. Ct. 1994 Upheld) Citation: 138 Wash 2d 413, 980 P2d 701 (8 July 1999)This suit was brought by Aviation West Corp., Competition Specialties Inc., Computer Group Inc., American Tobacco Co., Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., Lorillard Tobacco Co., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and Philip Morris Inc. against the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, and its Director, Mark Brown.
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant agency's regulation on smoking in private workplaces was invalidly promulgated. The defendants proposed an indoor air quality regulation on November 3, 1993, for the purpose of eliminating environmental tobacco smoke. They received written comments and conducted six public hearings, to which the plaintiffs attended and contributed. One of the regulations was issued in final form together with a Concise Explanatory Statement (CES) on March 15, 1994. It was reviewed by a legislative committee that voted it be suspended for exceeding the defendants' authority. After another hearing the department rejected the recommendation. The plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief.
The case was heard in the Washington Superior Court of Thurston County (No. 94-2-01966-7) before the Honorable Richard A Strophy. In a bench trial, the judge upheld the regulation, dismissing the case with an order on July 22, 1996. The plaintiffs appealed.
The Court of Appeals, Division Two certified the case for direct review to the State Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court of the State of Washington (980 P2d 701) heard the case on July 8, 1999. The case was heard by State Supreme Court Justices Gerry L. Alexander, Richard P. Guy, Barbara Durham, Charles Z. Smith, Barbara A. Madsen, Philip A. Talmadge, and Richard B. Sanders (dissenting). The court ruled that the defendants were not required to explain their complete rationale in the administrative record and were permitted to prove their case with more than the CES required by statute. The purpose of the administrative record was to make sure that the reasons for laws were not mere rationalizations that the lawyers came up with after the law was in place. The APA specifically stated that the court is permitted to use additional evidence when determining the lawfulness of regulations. The plaintiffs sat on their rights to make requests for statements as to why the agency overruled considerations against the adoption of the regulation. The court found that a regulation could be more restrictive than the OSH Act. It contrasted this case from one overruling the regulation of Benzene because tobacco smoke was not indispensable to the completion of any job, so the agency was able to prohibit it completely. The agency could also tend towards conservative overprotection so long as it was based on scientific findings, even if they were made by other agencies in other states. As long as sufficient explanation is given for the regulation, any rational regulation should be permitted. The EPA and other reports were on record as being relied on by the agency. The testimony of agency officials was also admitted showing reasonable debate on the issues. The court was not allowed to do any consideration on the reasonableness of the results the agency came to, only the process used to get there. The regulation could have been a product of a rational decision maker, and was therefore valid.