Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — D2 60254-7-II Published Opinion.pdf

pay all . . . employees . . . to be employed in the management, maintenance and operation of the

Project so long as all payroll and related expenditures for such personnel are within the [business

plan] guidelines.” CP at 362 (emphasis added). It is clear from the language of the provision that

AMC may hire onsite employees so long as the labor expenses fall within a project’s business

plan. AMC is not authorized to hire onsite employees whose “payroll and related expenditures”

fall outside the business plan.

Section 8.3 of the PMA states:

[AMC] shall do and perform all acts required of an employer with respect to the
Project and shall execute and file all tax and other returns required under the
applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations and/or ordinances governing
employment, and all other statements and reports pertaining to labor employed in
connection with the Project and under any similar federal or state law now or
hereafter in force. In connection with such filings, Owner shall, upon request,
promptly execute and deliver to [AMC] all necessary powers of attorney, notices
of appointment and the like. Owner shall be responsible for all amounts required
to be paid under the foregoing laws, and [AMC] shall pay the same from the
operating account.

CP at 362.

AMC argues that section 8.3 “does not require AMC to perform all acts . . . as the employer.

Rather, it requires AMC to perform acts of an employer.” Br. of Appellant at 19 (emphasis in

original) (underlining omitted). In other words, AMC asserts that based on the language in section

16
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 60254-7-II

8.3, it is not “the” employer. Br. of Appellant at 19 (emphasis in original). This is distinction