Background
Six live-in caregivers employed at AssureCare Adult Home LLC’s adult family homes in Washington sued their employer for violations of the Washington Minimum Wage Act (MWA), ch. 49.46 RCW. The caregivers regularly worked shifts beginning as early as 5:00 or 6:00 a.m. and continuing until 10:00 p.m. or midnight, remained on call through the night to respond to residents’ needs, and in some cases worked seven days a week. They were paid flat daily rates ranging from $110 to $145 regardless of total hours worked. AssureCare maintained no records of rest breaks, meal periods, or sick leave.
The caregivers sought partial summary judgment, challenging former RCW 49.46.010(3)(j) — which exempts “live-in” workers from the MWA’s minimum wage and overtime protections — under the privileges and immunities clause of the Washington Constitution, article I, section 12. They argued that live-in caregiving, like the dairy work at issue in Martinez-Cuevas v. DeRuyter Bros. Dairy, 196 Wn.2d 506 (2020), is a dangerous occupation entitling workers to constitutional protection under article II, section 35, which directs the legislature to enact laws safeguarding workers in employments “dangerous to life or deleterious to health.”
The trial court granted partial summary judgment for the caregivers, concluding that the exemption violated article I, section 12. The trial court found that caregiving is a constitutionally dangerous industry and that no reasonable ground existed for the exemption, noting it likely traced to the historically discriminatory exclusion of domestic workers from federal labor law. The trial court certified the constitutional question for immediate discretionary review, and the Washington Supreme Court accepted.
The Court’s Holding
The Washington Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Madsen (sitting as justice pro tempore), affirmed the grant of partial summary judgment. Applying the two-step article I, section 12 framework from Schroeder v. Weighall, 179 Wn.2d 566 (2014), the court first found that live-in caregiving at adult family homes constitutes a dangerous occupation as applied to these plaintiffs, generating a fundamental right of state citizenship to statutory health and safety protections in the form of the MWA. The court relied on evidence of high rates of musculoskeletal injury, routinely interrupted sleep, 24-hour shifts, and chronic sleep deprivation among live-in caregivers, tracking the analysis applied to dairy workers in Martinez-Cuevas.
The court next held that the live-in exemption confers a cognizable “privilege or immunity” on adult family home operators by immunizing them from otherwise mandatory minimum wage and overtime obligations and allowing them to pay lower labor costs. Turning to the final inquiry — whether reasonable grounds exist for the exemption — the court found none. The historically recognized rationale for the exemption, the accounting and practical difficulty of tracking hours for employees who live at their worksite, may justify the exemption for nondangerous occupations, but it is not a reasonable ground for denying constitutionally required safeguards to workers in a dangerous industry. The court declined to reach the caregivers’ equal protection challenge, which remains live in the trial court, and deferred the question of prospective versus retroactive application of its ruling to the trial court on remand.
Justice Mungia wrote separately to emphasize that article II, section 35 protects workers whose jobs are “deleterious to health” as well as those facing life-threatening danger, and that the undisputed record — including chronic sleep deprivation causing insomnia, stress headaches, blurred vision, stomachaches, and mental health conditions — independently established the constitutional violation on health-deleterious grounds the majority did not fully address.
Key Takeaways
- Former RCW 49.46.010(3)(j), the MWA live-in worker exemption, is unconstitutional as applied to live-in caregivers at adult family homes under Washington Constitution article I, section 12.
- Live-in caregiving at adult family homes is a constitutionally “dangerous” occupation under article II, section 35, triggering the legislature’s duty to provide statutory health and safety protections — extending Martinez-Cuevas beyond the agricultural context.
- Administrative convenience (the difficulty of tracking hours for live-in workers) is not a “reasonable ground” sufficient to justify denying MWA protections to workers in a constitutionally dangerous industry.
- The equal protection challenge to the exemption and the question of whether this ruling applies retroactively both remain pending before the trial court.
Why It Matters
This decision significantly expands the reach of Martinez-Cuevas and Washington’s state constitutional labor protections beyond farm workers. Adult family home operators across the state must now provide live-in caregivers with minimum wage and overtime pay under the MWA — a workforce that has historically been among the most economically vulnerable and least protected. The ruling also signals that Washington courts will scrutinize industry-specific wage exemptions closely whenever workers can demonstrate that their occupation poses documented dangers to health or safety, regardless of whether those dangers rise to the level of imminent physical peril.
For employment lawyers and employers in the long-term care sector, the decision raises immediate compliance questions given the industry’s heavy reliance on live-in staffing models. The court’s acknowledgment — though not adjudication — of the racially and sexually discriminatory origins of domestic worker exclusions in both the FLSA and the MWA also sets the stage for potentially broader constitutional challenges. The unresolved equal protection claim and the prospectivity issue on remand mean further litigation in this case is likely.