Washington Supreme Court Strikes Down Live-In Caregiver Wage Exemption
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited July 10, 2026). How we verify our legal content
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
Last updated: July 10, 2026. This is a developing story; details verified as of July 10, 2026.
Frequently Asked Questions
What did the Washington Supreme Court decide in Bolina v. Assurecare?
On July 9, 2026, the court held that Washington's live-in caregiver exemption to the Minimum Wage Act, RCW 49.46.010(3)(j), is unconstitutional as applied to live-in caregivers because it violates article I, section 12 of the Washington Constitution.
Who were the parties in the case?
Plaintiffs Jocylin Bolina and Adolfo Payag, live-in caregivers, sued Assurecare Adult Home, LLC, an adult family home operator, in 2023.
Are live-in caregivers now entitled to minimum wage in Washington?
Yes. As a result of the ruling, live-in caregivers are entitled to Minimum Wage Act protections, including minimum wage for all hours worked and overtime for hours over 40 in a workweek.
Did the Supreme Court resolve the entire case?
No. The court affirmed partial summary judgment for the caregivers and remanded the case to the trial court to decide remaining issues, including whether the ruling applies prospectively only.
Does this decision apply to past unpaid wages?
That question is unresolved. The Supreme Court remanded the retroactivity issue to the trial court, so whether the ruling reaches past pay periods has not yet been decided.
What is RCW 49.46.010(3)(j)?
It is the subsection of Washington's Minimum Wage Act that previously excluded certain live-in workers, including live-in caregivers, from the statute's definition of employee.
What is article I, section 12 of the Washington Constitution?
It is the state's privileges and immunities clause, which bars laws that grant a class of citizens or corporations privileges or immunities not granted to all citizens on the same terms. Washington courts apply an independent state analysis under this clause.
Does this ruling affect caregiver wage law outside Washington?
No. The decision is based on the Washington Constitution and governs Washington's Minimum Wage Act. It does not directly change wage statutes or live-in worker exemptions in other states.
Updates
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Revised Code of Washington
§ 49.46.010Definitions. (Effective until July 1, 2027.)In forcecited in 2 of our articles
As used in this chapter: (1) "Coercion" means a threat to compel or induce a person to engage in conduct which the person has a legal right to abstain from, or to abstain from conduct in which the person has a legal right to engage in; (2) "Director" means the director of labor and industries; (3) "Employ" includes to permit to work; (4) "Employee" includes any individual employed by an employer but shall not include: (a) Any individual (i) employed as a hand harvest laborer and paid on a piece rate basis in an operation which has been, and is generally and customarily recognized as having been, paid on a piece rate basis in the region of employment; (ii) who commutes daily from his or her permanent residence to the farm on which he or she is employed; and (iii) who has been employed in agriculture less than thirteen weeks during the preceding calendar year; (b) Any individual employed in casual labor in or about a private home, unless performed in the course of the employer's trade, business, or profession; (c) Any individual employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity or in the capacity of outside salesperson as those terms are defined and…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at app.leg.wa.gov
Cited in 128 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Hisle v. Todd Pacific Shipyards Corp. (Washington Supreme Court 2004, 151 Wash. 2d 853)“…compensation due to an employee by reason of employment.” RCW 49.46.010(2). To support their opposing positio…”
- Anfinson v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. (Washington Supreme Court 2012, 174 Wash. 2d 851)“…(2003)). ¶27 The MWA defines the term “employee.” Under RCW 49.46.010(3), “ ‘[e]mployee’ includes any individ…”
- Berrocal v. Fernandez (Washington Supreme Court 2005, 155 Wash. 2d 585)“…call, and not engaged in the performance of active duties.” RCW 49.46.010(5)(j). Petitioners Western Range Associ…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Washington Minimum Wage 2026: $17.13 Statewide and Local Rates
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Supreme Court of Washington, Bolina v. Assurecare Adult Home, LLC, No. 103519-5 (Wash. July 9, 2026)(courts.wa.gov)
- Washington Minimum Wage Act, RCW 49.46.010 (definitions, including the live-in exemption)(app.leg.wa.gov)
- Washington Constitution, Article I, Section 12 (privileges and immunities)(leg.wa.gov)
- Slip opinion, Bolina v. Assurecare Adult Home, LLC, No. 103519-5 (Wash. July 9, 2026) (via CourtListener)(courtlistener.com)