Washington Supreme Court Limits Live-In Worker Exemption For Adult Family Homes

Employers operating adult family homes in Washington may need to make immediate changes to their pay and timekeeping practices. In a significant July 9, 2026, decision, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that live-in caregivers cannot be excluded from key protections under Washington’s Minimum Wage Act (MWA), potentially reshaping wage-and-hour compliance for the industry.

Before this decision, adult family home employers had relied on the exemption to exclude those workers from the Minimum Wage Act’s minimum wage, overtime, meal break, rest break, timekeeping, and paid sick leave requirements. The Court concluded that live-in caregiving in adult family homes is dangerous work and that the practical difficulty of tracking live-in work time was not a sufficient reason to deny those workers the MWA’s health and safety protections. Adult family home employers should now treat live-in caregivers as covered by the MWA. Employers in other live-in, residential, overnight, or on-call settings should also review whether their practices remain defensible under the Court’s reasoning.

At-A-Glance

• The Washington Supreme Court struck down the live-in worker exemption as applied to adult family home caregivers.
• Live-in caregivers must now be treated as covered by the Minimum Wage Act.
• Employers should review overtime, meal and rest break, paid sick leave, and timekeeping practices.
• The decision may have implications beyond adult family homes for employers using live-in or overnight staffing models.

Background

The plaintiffs were live-in caregivers who worked at adult family homes operated by AssureCare in Washington State. They lived at the homes where they worked and provided around-the-clock care to medically fragile and elderly residents. Their duties included helping residents bathe, dress, eat, move, take medication, and respond to overnight needs. They also cooked meals, cleaned, did laundry, bought groceries, transported residents to appointments, performed basic maintenance, and completed administrative work. The record also showed that the caregivers often worked extended schedules, were paid flat daily rates, and did not receive overtime, recorded or compliant meal and rest breaks, paid sick leave, or formal timekeeping records.

At the center of the case was Washington’s former live-in worker exemption, RCW 49.46.010(3)(j). That exemption excluded workers from the MWA when their duties required them to live or sleep at the workplace, or when they spent a substantial portion of their work time on call and not performing active duties. AssureCare argued that the exemption reflected the practical difficulty of tracking work time for employees who live where they work. The caregivers argued that the exemption was unconstitutional because it gave adult family home employers immunity from wage-and-hour laws without sufficient justification. Both the trial court the Washington Supreme Court agreed with the caregivers.

Why the Court Rejected the Exemption

The analysis began with the Washington State Constitution, which requires the legislature to protect workers in jobs that are dangerous or harmful to health. In earlier cases, including its 2020 decision in Martinez-Cuevas v. DeRuyter Bros. Dairy, the Washington Supreme Court held that workers in dangerous jobs have a constitutionally protected interest in workplace health and safety protections.

The Court’s analysis focused on two practical questions:

• Was live-in caregiving in adult family homes dangerous or harmful to health?
• If so, was there a reasonable basis for excluding those workers from the Minimum Wage Act’s protections?

On the first question, the answer was a clear yes. The Court looked at the actual work performed by the caregivers, the record showing that they helped residents bathe, dress, eat, move, take medication, and respond to overnight needs. The record also showed that caregivers were injured while lifting and transferring residents, were exposed to infectious diseases and biohazards, worked shifts longer than 24 hours with disrupted sleep, and sometimes faced physical aggression from residents with dementia. AssureCare largely did not dispute that evidence. Based on that record, the Court held that live-in caregiving in adult family homes was dangerous enough to trigger constitutional protection.

The Court then considered whether the legislature had a reasonable basis for excluding those caregivers from the MWA. AssureCare argued that live-in work is difficult to track because employees live where they work. AssureCare also argued that requiring adult family homes to comply with minimum wage, overtime, meal break, rest break, and timekeeping rules could create significant operational and financial burdens for adult family homes. The Court rejected those arguments. It recognized that tracking time for live-in workers can be difficult, but held that this kind of “accounting function” was not a sufficient reason to deny MWA protections to workers doing dangerous work protected by the Washington State Constitution.

Could Other Employers Be Affected?

Although the Court’s holding is limited to live-in caregivers at adult family homes, its reasoning could have broader implications for employers that use live-in, residential, overnight, or on-call arrangements for employees.

The key question is not whether an employee lives at work or whether tracking time is difficult. The key question is whether the employee’s actual work is dangerous or harmful to health. If it is, an exemption from the MWA may be vulnerable unless there is a real and sufficiently strong reason for denying those workers the statute’s protections. Depending on the duties and risks involved, employers in group homes, residential treatment facilities, camps, farm labor housing, hotels, security operations, and similar settings should evaluate whether employees perform work that involves physical injury risks, exposure to illness or biohazards, long or interrupted shifts, or other health and safety concerns.

what employers should do now

Adult family home employers should no longer rely on the live-in worker exemption for live-in caregivers. In light of the Court’s decision, adult family home operators should treat live-in caregivers as covered by the MWA and review their compliance practices accordingly.

Employers should consider taking the following steps:

• Consider whether the Court’s reasoning affects other staffing models. Although the decision addressed live-in caregivers at adult family homes, its reasoning may apply more broadly where employees perform dangerous or health-risk work in live-in, residential, overnight, or on-call settings.
• Identify employees working under live-in, residential, overnight, or on-call arrangements. Determine which employees live or sleep at the worksite, respond to resident, customer, or business needs overnight, or are paid on a flat daily or weekly basis.
• Review timekeeping practices. Ensure that all non-exempt work time is accurately recorded, including time spent responding to needs during overnight periods, meal periods, rest periods, and on-call periods when work is actually performed.
• Evaluate wage-and-hour compliance. Confirm that employees receive at least the applicable state or local minimum wage for all hours worked, overtime premiums for hours worked over 40 in a workweek, legally compliant meal and rest breaks, and paid sick leave.
• Reassess flat-rate compensation arrangements. Paying a daily or weekly rate does not eliminate the obligation to track hours worked, satisfy minimum wage requirements, or pay overtime to non-exempt employees.
• Review policies and employee communications. Update handbooks, offer letters, agreements, and related documents to remove or revise language suggesting that live-in or residential workers are categorically exempt from MWA protections.
• Train supervisors and HR personnel. Managers responsible for scheduling or overseeing live-in, residential, overnight, or on-call employees should understand timekeeping requirements and how to address interrupted or missed breaks.
• Assess potential historical exposure. Although the Court did not decide whether its ruling applies retroactively, employers that relied on the exemption should evaluate potential back-pay and compliance risks, preserve relevant records, and monitor further proceedings in the case.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.