103,519-5
Wash.Jul 9, 2026Background
- Live-in and shift caregivers at AssureCare adult family homes sued, alleging the live-in exemption from the Washington Minimum Wage Act denied them minimum wage, overtime, and break protections. 1
- The caregivers worked long days and nights, often with interrupted sleep and breaks, while providing hands-on care to medically fragile residents and receiving room and board instead of hourly compensation. 2
- The trial court granted partial summary judgment to the caregivers, holding the live-in exemption unconstitutional as applied under article I, section 12. 3
- AssureCare argued the exemption did not implicate a fundamental right and that reasonable grounds existed because live-in caregiving requires different compensation and benefits. 4
- The Supreme Court affirmed, holding live-in caregiving at adult family homes is a dangerous profession entitled to article II, section 35 protections and that the exemption lacked reasonable grounds. 5
- A concurrence relied instead on article II, section 35's coverage of work deleterious to health, while a dissent argued the record was too undeveloped to resolve constitutionality on summary judgment. 6
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does article II, section 35 protect live-in caregivers? 7 | Caregivers said their work was dangerous and constitutionally protected. | AssureCare said caregiving was not shown dangerous enough. | Yes; live-in caregiving is dangerous work under article II, section 35. 8 |
| Does the live-in exemption grant a privilege or immunity? 9 | Caregivers argued the exemption gives AFHs lower labor costs and fewer protections. | AssureCare said it is only an accounting rule for workers living where they work. | Yes; it exempts AFHs from mandatory labor standards. 10 |
| Were there reasonable grounds for the exemption? 11 | Caregivers said no reasonable basis can deny required safety protections. | AssureCare said room and board plus industry economics justified the exemption. | No; bookkeeping and cost concerns are not reasonable grounds. 12 |
| Should the decision apply prospectively only? 13 | Caregivers said prospectivity was not properly before the court. | AssureCare sought prospective-only application. | No ruling; the court found the issue premature. 14 |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez-Cuevas v. DeRuyter Bros. Dairy, 196 Wn.2d 506 (Wash. 2020) (article II, section 35 protects workers in dangerous employment and supports MWA protections 15)
- Ranger Ins. Co. v. Pierce County, 164 Wn.2d 545 (Wash. 2008) (summary judgment reviewed de novo 16)
- Sunnyside Valley Irrig. Dist. v. Dickie, 149 Wn.2d 873 (Wash. 2003) (constitutional and statutory interpretation reviewed de novo 17)
- Schroeder v. Weighall, 179 Wn.2d 566 (Wash. 2014) (privileges and immunities analysis and reasonable-ground test 18)
- Grant County Fire Prot. Dist. No. 5 v. City of Moses Lake, 150 Wn.2d 791 (Wash. 2004) (article I, section 12 is more protective than federal equal protection 19)
- Berrocal v. Fernandez, 155 Wn.2d 585 (Wash. 2005) (live-in workers present accounting and practical difficulties in measuring work time 20)
- Strain v. W. Travel, Inc., 117 Wn. App. 251 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003) (overnight workers living where they work may be exempt 21)
- Bennett v. United States, 2 Wn.3d 430 (Wash. 2023) (reasonable-ground review is heightened and not ordinary rational basis 22)
- DeYoung v. Providence Med. Ctr., 136 Wn.2d 136 (Wash. 1998) (courts scrutinize whether a classification actually serves legislative goals 23)
- McCleary v. State, 173 Wn.2d 477 (Wash. 2012) (explains constitutional duties and legislative implementation authority 24)
- Anfinson v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc., 174 Wn.2d 851 (Wash. 2012) (minimum wage laws protect workers from low wages and harmful long hours 25)
- Island County v. State, 135 Wn.2d 141 (Wash. 1998) (courts are hesitant to strike statutes without a searching legal analysis 26)