City of Seattle () – During the COVID-19 pandemic, the City of Seattle adopted an ordinance requiring hazard pay (an extra dollar and a quarter for each work-related stop in Seattle) for gig workers for food delivery network companies.
#Courts seek root out racism clerk trial#
The Supreme Court remanded to the trial court consideration of whether the City of Seattle’s hazard pay ordinance, which required hazard pay for gig workers for food delivery network companies during the COVID-19 pandemic, violated the takings and contracts clauses of the federal and state constitution and exceeded the city’s police power.
The second challenge claimed the city’s Design Review Board applies its guidelines inconsistently as compared to an unrelated prior proposal for the same site the court dismissed this claim because Fischer didn’t identify any specific guidelines the Board applied inconsistently and failed to identify which of the LUPA standards in RCW 36.70C.130 applied to their challenge. Because the amendment became effective while the case was pending appeal, the court was required to dismiss the light and glare claims. While the appeal was pending, the legislature modified SEPA to eliminate the ability to appeal based on light and glare, which curtailed the court’s authority to review SEPA-related light and glare claims. Fischer first challenged the threshold determination that the proposal was not likely to have a probable adverse impact on the light and glare of the environment under SEPA. City of Seattle () – Fischer appealed the city’s design review approval of a proposed apartment building across an alley. The court remanded the matter to the Board with instructions to reinstate the DNS and enter a finding of GMA and SEPA compliance.Ī legislative amendment to SEPA that eliminated the ability to review SEPA-related light and glare claims applied to a pending case challenging a development based on light and glare.įischer Studio Building Condominium Owners Assoc. The court reversed the Board’s order of invalidity, concluding that the ordinance isn’t likely to lead to plaintiff’s predicted development and the county was correct in issuing its DNS. The Board agreed and invalidated the ordinance. The ordinance was challenged before the Growth Management Hearings Board the primary claim was that the ordinance would result in a proliferation of the facilities, which would have significant environmental consequences that the county failed to recognize and evaluate.
#Courts seek root out racism clerk code#
Friends of Sammamish Valley () – This case involved challenges to a King County ordinance amending its land use code governing winery, brewery and distillery facilities. State Environmental Protection Act (SEPA)Ĭounty correctly issued a determination of nonsignificance (DNS) on its land use code governing winery, brewery, and distillery facilities.
0 kommentar(er)
