On July 9, 2026, the Washington Supreme Court affirmed partial summary judgment in the matter of Bolina v. Assurecare Adult Home, LLC, Case No. 103519-5, (Wash. July 9, 2026), holding that RCW 49.46.010(3)(j)’s[1] “live-in” exemption to the Minimum Wage Act (MWA) violates article I, section 12 as applied to live-in caregivers.
Until now, RCW 49.46.010(3)(j) generally exempted “[a]ny individual whose duties require that he or she reside or sleep at the place of his or her employment, or who otherwise spends a substantial portion of his or her work time subject to call, and not engaged in the performance of active duties,” from minimum wage and overtime pay requirements.
Key Changes and Takeaways for Employers
The immediate effect of this ruling is that live-in caregivers are entitled to MWA protections, including minimum wage for all hours worked and overtime for all hours in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. Employers of live-in caregivers must reassess and evaluate their timekeeping and compensation policies, procedures, and practices to ensure compliance with the MWA.
Factual Background
The plaintiff-caregivers lived and worked in adult family homes owned by AssureCare, providing resident care, housekeeping, transportation, and administrative tasks. The caregivers received a flat daily rate regardless of hours worked, but typically, their working hours ran from early morning until late at night. They also received room and board, did not pay rent, utilities, Internet, or food costs, and had access to a vehicle.
Underlying Proceedings
In 2023, the plaintiff-caregivers sued AssureCare for MWA violations, and sought judgment that the live-in exemption, RCW 49.46.010(3)(j) (former), violates Washington’s state constitution.
The caregivers moved for partial summary judgment on the exemption’s constitutionality, supported by expert opinion that the job of a live-in caregiver is a dangerous occupation, and thus, the plaintiff-caregivers had a fundamental right to health and safety protections enshrined in article II, section 35 in the form of the MWA. In opposition, AssureCare argued, in part, that the live-in exemption was constitutional because it served the legislature’s goals: the unique nature of adult family homes requires live-in caregivers, who receive other benefits such as room and board.
The trial court granted partial summary judgment to the caregivers, concluding that caregiving is a dangerous industry, requiring protections under article II, section 35. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed, finding that the immunity granted to the defendant adult homes by the MWA live-in exemption is unconstitutional as applied to live-in caregivers. The case has been remanded to the trial court to decide, among other issues, whether the Washington Supreme Court’s decision should apply prospectively only.
Please contact Mary Cullen or another member of the Williams Kastner Labor & Employment practice team for assistance in preparing for these significant changes to Washington’s minimum wage laws.
[1] Currently, RCW 49.46.010(4)(j)