The court found the measure violated a rule that says initiatives put before the voters can cover only one subject.

Share story

Washington’s Court of Appeals on Monday struck down a Seattle ordinance that extended new rights to hotel workers, determining the ballot measure that enacted the law included provisions unrelated to each other.

The court found the measure violated a rule that says initiatives put before the voters can cover only one subject.

“We’re reviewing the decision and assessing our options for next steps,” Deputy City Attorney John Schochet said.

Approved with 77 percent of the vote in 2016, Seattle Initiative 124 required hotels to provide workers with emergency panic buttons, keep lists of guests accused of assaulting or harassing workers, and bar those guests in certain circumstances.

Drawn up by the local hotel-workers union, which said the law would safeguard a workforce of mostly immigrant women from sexual assault and harassment, I-124 also required hotels to protect workers from chemical hazards, limit them to 5,000 square feet of cleaning in a normal day, provide them with health-care coverage or subsidies, and retain them as employees during ownership changes.

The measure said the provisions, other than those dealing with assault and harassment, could be waived in favor of collective bargaining.

“We couldn’t disagree more strongly with the Court of Appeals decision and will be working with the city to ensure that the will of Seattle voters is upheld and the needs of Seattle hotel workers are met,” said Abby Lawlor, spokeswoman for the union, Unite Here! Local 8.

A King County Superior Court judge last year dismissed a lawsuit brought by the American Hotel and Lodging Association, the Seattle Hotel Association and the Washington Hospitality Association.

Besides claiming the ballot measure was too broad, the groups said the city lacked authority to regulate workplace safety, said the law would cause hotels to lose business and attacked the blacklist requirement, arguing it violated privacy and due-process rights.

In appealing the lower-court ruling, the groups pointed to the single-subject rule, and an appeals-court panel agreed with them.

I-124 broke the rule because the court couldn’t determine whether any of the various provisions would have passed on their own, according to the three-judge panel.

“Did 1-124 receive overwhelming support because almost 80 percent of Seattle voters supported all the provisions? Or did a majority of the voters want to provide better healthcare to these workers and were willing to accept the guest registry provisions as a necessary evil to achieve the healthcare goal?” the judges wrote, finding “no rational unity between the provisions.”

Seattle could ask the appeals court to reconsider, ask the state Supreme Court for review or surrender the case.

“We’re pleased with today’s ruling,” the Seattle Hotel Association said in a statement.

“Seattle hotels remain committed to a safe, healthy work environment that respects the rights of both our employees and our guests. … Initiative 124 threatened that commitment, impeding the industry’s ability to manage and provide opportunities to its workforce while violating the rights of our customers. We know that working together is a more effective means to address the issues put forth in this initiative.”