Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, STATE-LAW CLAIMS—Wash. Sup. Ct.: Exemption of ‘live-in’ caregivers from Minimum Wage Act violated Washington constitution, (Jul 10, 2026)

By Ronald Miller, J.D.

As workers engaged in a dangerous industry, the caregivers are entitled to health and safety protections.

The Washington Supreme Court concluded that an exemption in former RCW 49.46.010(3)(j) from minimum wage for live-in caregivers at adult family homes was unconstitutional because it exempted an employer from mandated worker safeguards on the basis of an accounting principle. This is not a reasonable ground for the exemption, determined the state high court. The caregivers demonstrated a fundamental right to health and safety protections enshrined in article II, section 35 of the state constitution in the form of the Washington Minimum Wage Act. Accordingly, the high court held that former RCW 49.46.010(3)(j) violated article I, section 12 as applied to live-in caregivers. Justice Mungia, joined by Justices González and McCloud, filed a separate concurring opinion. Justice Johnson filed a separate dissenting opinion (Bolina v. AssureCare Adult Home LLC, No. 103519-5 (Wash. Sup. Ct. July 9, 2026)).

Live-in caregivers. Caregivers employed by AssureCare worked and lived at different adult family homes (AFH). These caregivers had various duties, including assisting residents with activities of daily life. Thee also cooked meals, cleaned the homes, performed basic maintenance, did laundry, bought groceries, transported residents to appointments, and performed administrative work.

The caregivers’ work schedules varied depending on the day and facility, but they typically started in the early morning (5:00 or 6:00 a.m.) and lasted until night (10:00 p.m. or midnight), when they went to sleep. Generally, two caregivers were on duty during the day and one at night. The caregivers’ sleep, rest, and meal breaks were often interrupted by resident needs. Some caregivers worked seven days a week.

The caregivers received room and board at the adult family homes. They did not pay rent, utilities, Internet, or food costs, and they had access to a vehicle. The caregivers’ family members and significant others were also allowed to live in the homes without contributing to household expenses. The caregivers were paid a flat rate, regardless of the hours they worked. AssureCare did not keep employment documents or maintain records for meal periods, rest breaks, and sick or other personal leave taken.

In 2023, the caregivers sued AssureCare for violating the Washington Minimum Wage Act (MWA). They alleged that AssureCare failed to pay minimum wage for all hours worked and overtime, and did not provide meal breaks, rest breaks, or sick leave. The caregivers sought declaratory judgment that the live-in exemption, former RCW 49.46.010(3)(j), violates the privileges and immunities clause and the equal protection clause of the state constitution.

The caregivers moved for partial summary judgment on the exemption’s constitutionality under the privileges and immunities clause as applied to live-in caregivers. They claimed that they often worked over 40 hours a week in highly dangerous conditions. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that the caregivers had not proved that their occupation was dangerous.

After the caregivers submitted an expert report, they again moved for partial summary judgment. This time the trial court granted the motion, concluding that the live-in exemption violated article I, section 12 of the Washington constitution. It concluded that caregiving is a dangerous industry pursuant to article II, section 35 and requires MWA protections of minimum wage and overtime.

In September 2024, the trial court certified its ruling as involving a controlling question of law for which there is a substantial ground for a difference of opinion. AssureCare sought discretionary review. The only issue currently before the Washington Supreme Court was whether former RCW 49.46.010(3)(j) violates the privileges and immunities clause of the state constitution.

Privileges and immunities. The Washington Supreme Court has recognized that article I, section 12 is more protective than its federal counterpart and requires a different analysis when a law implicates a “‘fundamental right[]’” of state citizenship. In those situations, the court has applied a two-step analysis: (1) asking whether a challenged law grants a privilege or immunity for purposes of the state constitution and (2) if so, whether there is a reasonable ground for granting that privilege or immunity.

Fundamental right of state citizenship. Thus, the court’s first inquiry was whether this case implicates a fundamental right of state citizenship. The caregivers contended they have such a right to legislative protection for jobs that are dangerous to life or deleterious to health under article II, section 35. The state high court agreed.

The caregivers have provided evidence of significant musculoskeletal injuries sustained by assisting residents with activities of daily life including moving, transporting, and lifting residents from beds, bathrooms, and wheelchairs. Caregivers were required to respond to resident needs day or night, resulting in shifts that exceeded 24 hours, with many of the caregivers working 7 days a week. The evidence presented demonstrated that caregivers who lived at AssureCare homes, working 24-hour shifts, did not get sufficient sleep and that research studies “link working the night shift to sleep problems, overall poor health, depression, and increased risk for workplace injuries.”

Health and safety protections. As workers engaged in a dangerous industry, the caregivers are entitled to health and safety protections. While the adult family home industry is heavily regulated, those regulations overwhelmingly concern the health and safety of residents—not live-in caregivers.

AssureCare stated that it already provides basic worker protections like meal breaks and sick leave, as well as unique benefits of free room and board to live-in caregivers and their family members. But AssureCare is not bound by law to provide any of these protections. As it stands, the record here does not demonstrate protections for worker health and safety. AssureCare did not record rest and meal breaks or sick and vacation leave. Caregivers were required to respond to all resident needs whenever they occurred, routinely resulting in caregivers working 24 hours without meaningful opportunities for sleep, breaks, or meals.

If the high court adopted AssureCare’s view, there would be no statutory or regulatory framework to ensure that workers in a dangerous industry receive basic, constitutionally mandated workplace safety protections. Thus, the caregivers established that live-in caregiving at adult family homes constitutes a dangerous profession. Accordingly, the caregivers demonstrated a fundamental right to statutory safeguards as provided in the MWA.

Privileges or immunity. The exemption in former RCW 49.46.010(3)(j) granted adult family care homes immunity from otherwise mandatory labor standards and the privilege of paying lower labor costs.

The high court’s final inquiry in its article I, section 12 analysis asked whether reasonable grounds existed for granting the privilege or immunity. Under the reasonable ground test, a court will scrutinize the legislative distinction to determine whether it serves the legislature’s stated goals in fact and theory.

The MWA is a remedial law that “establish[es] minimum standards of employment within the state of Washington.” Its purpose is to protect the “health, safety and welfare of the people of this state.”

The high court concluded that the exemption is a legislative recognition that the nature of certain occupations does not lend itself to the standard 40-hour work week and traditional compensation models. But this reasoning does not address the dangerous nature of live-in caregiving at adult family homes. Considering that danger and the legislative duty to protect workers in such an industry, the high court concluded that the exemption denies basic health and safety protections to live-in caregivers. An accounting principle and the potential for negative financial consequences are not reasonable grounds for denying constitutionally required safeguards set out in the MWA.

Accordingly, the state high court affirmed the trial court’s ruling granting partial summary judgment.

Concurrence. Concurring, Justice Mungia observed that the cost of providing home-like facilities for individuals who cannot live independently cannot be placed on the backs of workers. The state constitution requires the legislature to enact laws to protect workers whose jobs put their lives at risk or whose work is deleterious to their health. The MWA was passed to protect the health, safety, and welfare of workers. Without the protections of the MWA, some employers will use their economic power to require their workers to work excessively long hours, work without uninterrupted breaks, and work more than 40 hours a week, all for less than minimum wage. Accordingly, Justice Mungia agreed with the majority that exempting AFH live-in workers from the MWA violates article I, section 12 of the state constitution.

Dissent. While Justice Johnson noted that the caregivers raised legitimate concerns about their workplace conditions, in light of the underdeveloped record and the procedural posture of this case, he declined to join the majority’s broad, categorical holding. The caregivers sued their employer for violating the Washington Minimum Wage Act (MWA), ch. 49.46 RCW. Because a statutory exemption, former RCW 49.46.010(3)(j)(2013), excludes them from the MWA’s protections, the caregivers claim the exemption is unconstitutional, as applied to them, under Washington’s privileges and immunities clause. The trial court granted the caregivers’ motion for partial summary judgment, deciding that the exemption is unconstitutional as applied to them. Justice Johnson dissented because the factual record was underdeveloped and insufficient to support such a conclusion at this stage in the proceedings.

The case is No. 103519-5.

Judge: Madsen, B.

Attorneys: Jeremiah Miller (Sirianni Youtz Spoonemore Hamburger) for Jocylin Bolina, Adolfo Payag, Madonna Ocampo, Honorina Robles, Hollee Castillo, and Reginald Villalobos. Seth Alan Rosenberg (Seattle Litigation Group) for AssureCare Adult Home LLC, AssureCare Adult Family Home LLC, AssureCare Family Home Care LLC, Marcelina S. MacAndog, and Gerald MacAndog.

Companies: AssureCare Adult Home LLC; AssureCare Adult Family Home LLC; AssureCare Family Home Care LLC

Cases: StateLawClaims StateLegislation Safety WageHour MinimumWage Overtime Exemptions WorkingTime EmployeeLeave WashingtonNews