The caregivers earned $110 to $145 a day for round-the-clock shifts - and one justice dissented
Washington's top court struck down a wage exemption that let adult family homes pay live-in caregivers flat daily rates - no overtime, no breaks.
On July 9, 2026, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that a long-standing exemption in the state's Minimum Wage Act cannot be applied to live-in caregivers at adult family homes. The justices affirmed a trial court ruling and sent the case back for more proceedings.
For years, the state's "live-in" exemption has let some employers pay workers who live where they work without the usual rules on minimum wage, overtime, and rest breaks. The court did not erase that exemption for everyone. It held the exemption unconstitutional only as applied to live-in caregivers at adult family homes.
The six caregivers behind the case worked at homes run by AssureCare. They were paid a flat daily rate of $110 to $145, no matter how many hours they put in. Their days often started in the early morning and ran until 10:00 p.m. or later, and some worked seven days a week. They got room and board and paid no rent, utilities, or food costs. According to the ruling, the company kept no records of meal periods, rest breaks, or sick and personal leave.
The caregivers sued in 2023. They said the company failed to pay minimum wage for all hours worked and overtime, and did not provide meal breaks, rest breaks, or sick leave. They argued the exemption clashed with the state constitution's privileges and immunities clause.
The caregivers modeled their case on a 2020 ruling involving dairy workers. They argued that caregiving is a dangerous job the state constitution requires lawmakers to protect. The court agreed. It pointed to evidence of injuries from lifting residents, sleep loss from around-the-clock shifts, and data on injury rates in the industry.
The court then found no "reasonable ground" for the exemption as applied to these workers. Its only real basis, the court said, was an "accounting function" for paying nontraditional workers. That was not enough to strip away basic workplace protections.
The court was not unanimous. A concurring justice would have reached the same result on a different footing, finding the work "deleterious to their health." A dissenting justice said the factual record was too thin to declare the exemption unconstitutional this early.
The ruling does not close the matter. The court did not decide whether it applies only going forward or also to past conduct, and a separate equal protection claim is still pending in the trial court.
