Washington Supreme Court Strikes Down Live-In Caregiver Wage Exemption

Washington Supreme Court Strikes Down Live-In Caregiver Wage Exemption

The Washington Supreme Court ruled July 9, 2026 in Bolina v. Assurecare Adult Home, LLC that the state's minimum wage law cannot exempt live-in caregivers from wage and overtime protections. The court affirmed partial summary judgment for two caregivers, holding the exemption unconstitutional as applied to them.

Information last verified on July 10, 2026.

Jurisdiction scope: This ruling applies to Washington state law, specifically the Washington Minimum Wage Act (RCW 49.46) and article I, section 12 of the Washington Constitution. It does not alter federal wage law or the wage statutes of any other state.

What Happened

Jocylin Bolina and Adolfo Payag worked as live-in caregivers for Assurecare Adult Home, LLC, an adult family home operator. In 2023, they sued the company, alleging it failed to pay minimum wage for all hours worked, failed to pay overtime, and did not provide meal breaks, rest breaks, or sick leave as required under Washington law.

Assurecare's position rested on RCW 49.46.010(3)(j), a provision of the Washington Minimum Wage Act that excludes certain live-in workers from the statute's definition of "employee." Because the exemption removes live-in caregivers from that definition, employers relying on it have argued they owe no minimum wage or overtime for hours these workers spend on duty in the home where they live.

The trial court granted the caregivers partial summary judgment, concluding that caregiving is a dangerous industry that warrants the same wage and hour protections given to other workers. Assurecare appealed, and the case reached the Washington Supreme Court directly.

On July 9, 2026, the Supreme Court affirmed. It held that the immunity the live-in exemption grants to adult family home employers is unconstitutional as applied to live-in caregivers, because it violates article I, section 12 of the Washington Constitution, the state's privileges and immunities clause. The immediate effect is that live-in caregivers covered by the ruling are entitled to Minimum Wage Act protections: minimum wage for all hours worked and overtime for hours worked beyond 40 in a workweek.

The court did not resolve every issue in the case. It remanded to the trial court to decide additional questions, including whether the decision should apply only prospectively or also reach wages already paid under the old exemption. That retroactivity question is unresolved as of this writing.

What the Law Actually Says

The Washington Minimum Wage Act, codified at RCW 49.46, sets the state's minimum wage and overtime requirements. RCW 49.46.010(3) lists categories of workers excluded from the statute's definition of "employee," and subsection (j) is the live-in exemption at issue in this case. Employers who fall within one of the listed exclusions have historically been able to treat those workers as outside the Act's minimum wage and overtime coverage.

Article I, section 12 of the Washington Constitution states that no law shall grant to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation privileges or immunities that, upon the same terms, are not granted to all citizens or corporations. Washington courts apply an independent analysis under this clause, one that can offer broader protection than the federal Equal Protection Clause in comparable cases. In Bolina, the court applied that state constitutional standard to conclude that carving live-in caregivers out of the Minimum Wage Act's protections, while other similarly situated workers remain covered, amounts to an unconstitutional grant of immunity to the employers who rely on the exemption.

Because the ruling is grounded in the state constitution rather than federal law, it governs how RCW 49.46.010(3)(j) can be applied in Washington and does not directly affect wage statutes in other states, even where those statutes contain similar live-in worker exemptions.

Analysis: Why This Matters

The following is analysis from the Recording Law Editorial Team. This decision narrows a long-standing carve-out in Washington wage law rather than eliminating the underlying statute. RCW 49.46.010(3)(j) remains on the books, but the Supreme Court has now said employers cannot rely on it to deny live-in caregivers minimum wage and overtime. That distinction matters for adult family home operators and similar employers who structured pay practices around the exemption; the ruling reaches how the law applies to this specific worker class, not the statute's text itself.

The unresolved remand question, whether the decision applies only prospectively, is significant for any employer that has relied on the exemption. Until the trial court rules on retroactivity, it is not yet settled whether past pay periods are affected. This case sits within a broader pattern of Washington wage and employment litigation testing where state constitutional protections extend further than employers may have assumed, a dynamic that also shows up in how Washington limits at-will employment for workers asserting statutory rights.

How This Affects You

This ruling addresses live-in caregivers working for adult family home operators in Washington and the wage exemption those employers previously relied on. It does not resolve claims for individual workers or establish what any specific employee is owed; the remand will determine how the decision applies going forward and whether it reaches past pay periods. Wage and hour disputes are fact-specific, and this article is general information, not a case evaluation for any particular worker or employer relationship. Anyone with questions about a specific pay dispute should review the primary sources below and consult a licensed attorney in Washington. This case is also a reminder that employee protections across the states vary significantly depending on how each state's wage statute defines covered employment.

This article provides general legal information about a recent court decision and is not legal advice. It does not create an attorney-client relationship and should not be relied on as a substitute for consulting a licensed attorney about a specific wage or employment situation.

Related Coverage

• How Washington limits at-will employment
• Employee protections across the states

Last updated: July 10, 2026. This is a developing story; details verified as of July 10, 2026.