March 21, 2019
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Subject:

Housing, Health, Energy & Workers Rights Committee Members
Dan Eder, Central Staff Deputy Director
Initiative 124 – Background and Status

The Housing, Health, Energy & Workers Rights Committee may be interested in exploring
legislative approaches that would extend protections to hotel workers similar to those included
in the Hotel Employees Health and Safety Initiative (Initiative 124). This memo highlights the
current status of the initiative and a summary of the initiative’s key provisions.
I.

Current Status

Seattle voters approved Initiative 124 on November 6, 2016. The provisions of Initiative 124
were added to Seattle Municipal Code (SMC) at Section 14.25, and the Office of Labor
Standards issued final administrative rules that went into effect on July 1, 2018.
Shortly after Initiative 124’s passage, various hotel associations filed an action in state court
challenging the initiative on several grounds. The King County Superior Court upheld the
initiative. However, on December 24, 2018, Division I of the Washington State Court of Appeals
invalidated Initiative 124 in its entirety based on its conclusion that Initiative 124 contained
multiple, unrelated subjects. The City Attorney’s Office filed a petition for review in the
Washington State Supreme Court. At least until resolution of the Supreme Court proceedings,
Initiative 124 (codified in SMC 14.25) and the associated administrative rules promulgated by
the Office of Labor Standards are both effectively on hold.
Separately, the ERISA Industry Committee (ERIC) filed a federal district court case regarding
health care provisions included in the initiative. That case is on hold pending the resolution of
the state court action.
II.

Initiative 124 Key Provisions

The entire initiative applies to those hotels with 60 or more guest rooms. As noted below, some
provisions apply only to large hotels, defined as having 100 or more guest rooms.
Part 1 – Protecting Hotel Employees from Violent Assault and Sexual Harassment
Initiative 124 is intended to “protect hotel employees from violent assault, including sexual
assault, and sexual harassment.”
A. Panic Buttons (14.25.030). Hotel employers must provide a panic button to each
employee assigned to work alone in a guest room.
Page 1 of 4

 B. Notices (14.25.050). Hotels must post signs in each room alerting guests that the
hotel has provided panic buttons to employees.
C. List of Accused Guests (14.25.040). Hotel employers must maintain a list of guests
who have been accused of any act of violence, including assault, sexual assault or
sexual harassment towards an employee. Accused guests must remain on such a list
for at least five years from the date of the most recent accusation.
1. Hotel employers must ban guests from returning to their hotel for at least
three years after the date of the reported violent incident in the event that
both:
a. The accusation against the guest involves assault, sexual assault, or
sexual harassment; and
b. The accusation is supported by “a statement under penalty of
perjury” or “other evidence.”
2. Hotel employers must alert employees assigned to work alone in guest
rooms when any guest on the list described above is staying at the hotel, and
hotel employers must “warn the employees to exercise caution when
entering [the] room [of any such guest] during the time the guest is staying in
the hotel.”
D. Physical Separation (14.25.060.A). Upon request by an employee who reports an
occurrence of an act of violence by a guest staying at a hotel, the hotel must
reassign the employee to work on another floor or in another area (if another floor
is unavailable) for the duration of the accused guest’s stay at the hotel.
E. Paid Time Off (14.25.060.B). Hotels must immediately provide each employee who
reports an act of violence by a guest with paid time off at the employee’s regular
rate of pay to file a police report and to consult with a counselor or advisor of the
employee’s choosing.
Part 2 – Protecting Hotel Employees from Injury
Initiative 124 notes that hotel workers face potential injury from “heavy lifting, repetitive tasks,
and chemical exposure,” and the initiative is intended to protect workers from on-the-job
injuries.
A. Reasonable Safety Practices (14.25.080). Hotel employers are required to “use safety
devices, and safeguards and use work practices, methods, processes, and means
that are reasonably adequate to make their workplaces safe.”

Page 2 of 4

 B. Chemical Hazards (14.25.090). Hotel employers must control chemical hazards to
protect employees from exposure to chemical agents. Hotel employers also must
provide information to employees about any new chemicals they may become
exposure to in the workplace.
C. Square Footage Limits (14.25.100). The initiative includes new requirements for how
large hotels (those with 100 or more guest rooms) may assign housekeeping work.
1. A large hotel cannot require that a housekeeper clean more than 5,000
square feet of floor space in an eight-hour shift.
2. In the event that a housekeeper agrees to clean more than 5,000 square feet,
a large hotel must pay a 50 percent hourly premium for all time spent
cleaning on the day the overage occurred.
3. These requirements are pro-rated for employees who devote less than eight
hours per day to cleaning guest rooms and are also adjusted for employees
cleaning ten or more “strenuous rooms” (a defined term meaning a room
with either a scheduled checkout, a cot, a rollout bed, a pet bed, or a crib)
within an eight-hour period.
Part 3 – Improving Access to Medical Care for Low Income Hotel Employees
Initiative 124 is intended to “improve access to affordable family medical care for hotel
employees.”
A. Additional compensation (14.25.120). Large hotel employers must pay low-income
workers additional money that is reflective of the cost of an insurance policy on the
Washington Health Benefit Exchange. The payment amount owing to the employee
is the greater of:
1. $200 monthly, adjusted by a measure of health care cost inflation ($295 for
2019); or
2. The difference between (a) the monthly premium for the lowest-cost, goldlevel policy available on the Washington Health Benefit Exchange and (b) 7.5
percent of the amount that the employee’s previous month’s wages
exceeded the federal poverty line.
B. Exception. An employer is not required to pay additional money to an employee
that has enrolled in an employer-sponsored health insurance plan that meets the
affordability and quality requirements set out by the ordinance.

Page 3 of 4

 Part 4 – Preventing Disruptions in the Hotel Industry
Initiative 124 is intended to “reduce disruptions to the Seattle economy that could result from
the increasing number of property sales and changes in ownership in the hotel industry.”
A. Worker Retention (14.25.140). When a hotel changes hands, several provisions
protect employees working at that hotel. Broadly speaking, the new hotel owner
must initially offer jobs to the hotel workers employed by the previous owner before
hiring any new employees. However, the new hotel owner may opt to employ fewer
employees overall and retain only a subset of the existing employees based on
seniority, or it may otherwise discharge any existing employee(s) for just cause.
Part 5 – Enforcing Compliance with the Law (14.25.150)
A. Rules. The Office of Labor Standards (OLS) is authorized to promulgate rules, but – as
described below – OLS is not authorized to enforce Initiative 124. Nonetheless,
employees who believe they have not been properly compensated may file a
complaint with OLS under the City’s separate Wage Theft law provisions.
B. Investigation. The City of Seattle “may investigate charges alleging violations … and
shall have such powers and duties in the performance of these functions as are
necessary and proper in the performance of the same and provided for by law.”1
C. Enforcement. Unlike other municipal labor laws (e.g., Wage Theft, Minimum Wage,
Secure Scheduling, Paid Sick & Safe Time), the City of Seattle does not have direct a
role in enforcing Initiative 124. The initiative provides hotel employees with a private
right of action and allows hotel workers to sue their employer in “King County
Superior Court or any other court of competent jurisdiction” and to seek monetary
or injunctive relief including but not limited to lost wages and other damages,
reinstatement, a portion of any imposed civil penalties, and attorneys’ fees.
Part 6 – Definitions (14.25.160)
A. There are specific definitions for many of the terms used in Initiative 124.

cc:

Kirstan Arestad, Central Staff Director

1

The Initiative specifically indicates that the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) rather than OLS may conduct such
investigations. When the Initiative was passed by voters in 2016, OLS was a division within OCR. Shortly after the
Initiative became law, City Council passed legislation establishing OLS as a stand-alone office.
Page 4 of 4