For Immediate Release:
Sep. 12, 2025
Contact: Hannah Sabio-Howell | hannah@workingwa.org, (206) 573-2317
Fair Work Center, on behalf of workers, to argue before Washington Supreme Court that exclusions from minimum wage rights for live-in care workers are unconstitutional
A Washington Supreme Court ruling in favor of workers could lead to a broader legislative action nullifying the live-in exemption and expanding coverage of fundamental labor standards to thousands of low-wage Washington workers.
Olympia, WA – The Washington Supreme Court on Tuesday will hear oral arguments, presented by Fair Work Center Legal Director Jeremiah Miller, on the case of Bolina et al v. Assurecare, LLC asserting that the 64 year old exemption of live-in care workers from bedrock labor protections is unconstitutional.
The Case
Fair Work Center will be representing six workers formerly employed by several Adult Family Homes (AFHs) run by Assurecare. The workers – Ms. Bolina, Mr. Payag, Ms. Ocampo, Ms. Robles, Mr. Castillo and Mr. Villalobos – came to Fair Work Center in 2022 with horrific reports of workers’ rights abuses. The workers often worked shifts that were 24 hours long, without uninterrupted breaks or sleep, resulting in injuries and infections like COVID-19. The impact of these injuries and illnesses on these caregivers was compounded by their lack of access to sick leave. For this back-breaking labor, they were paid a flat daily rate regardless of how many hours they worked, amounting to as little as four dollars per hour with no overtime pay.
This experience for live-in care workers at AFHs is common. Though Washington is, in many ways, a national leader in protecting workers’ rights, the backbone of our state’s labor laws (the Minimum Wage Requirement and Labor Standards Act, also known as the MWA) is fundamentally shaped by flawed federal laws. It contains unexplained exemptions to various labor protections for many categories of workers, including workers who live where they work.
The History
Accordingly, the MWA exempts “[a]ny individual whose duties require that [they] reside or sleep at the place of [their] employment…” from its protections. This exclusion derives from a shameful tradition in the United States denigrating the value of domestic work (including caregiving work), and the explicit exclusion of work that is performed by non-white, non-male identifying people from foundational labor laws.
The federal government in the 1930s enacted groundbreaking worker protections in the form of various “New Deal” laws, including the National Labor Relations Act, the Social Security Act, and the Fair Labor Standards Act. But these laws explicitly or implicitly excluded domestic workers and agricultural workers, part of a pattern of systematic and intentional exclusion of Black and female workers from all major New Deal legislation. As a tool for advancing overtly discriminatory interests, drafters used facially neutral categorical exclusions as proxies for excluding Black and female labor forces from the New Deal. The goal was simple: maintain the existing social hierarchy and prevent Black and female workers from gaining political power. Echoes of these decisions were codified in Washington law, with little or no discussion, in the 1960s.
The Impact
For live-in care workers today, these exemptions allow AFH employers to create work conditions that would be illegal for most workers, including other caregivers doing identical work, who do not live where they provide care. Wages on the order of a few dollars per hour, no breaks, and no access to state-protected sick leave are conditions that no worker should face. The very idea that “living-in” somehow makes a worker less deserving of protection cannot be separated from the social, cultural, and political contexts that have informed the way society devalues labor performed in the “domestic” sphere. It is time we shed the deeply racist and sexist thinking that never had any place in our country’s labor laws and certainly doesn’t today.
The Possible Outcome
Fair Work Center on Tuesday will seek a judgment from the Washington State Supreme Court that declares the live-in exemption to the MWA unconstitutional. If successful, this decision would follow on the heels of a 2020 decision (Martinez-Cuevas et al. v. DeRuyter Bros. Dairy Inc.) in which the Washington Supreme Court determined that excluding workers in dangerous jobs from the MWA violates the Washington Constitution’s unique Privileges and Immunities Clause. As a result, the Washington state Legislature ended the overtime exemption for all agricultural employees. Fair Work Center’s case could similarly extend these constitutional protections to live-in caregivers, who are overdue for access to minimum labor standards.
Comments from plaintiffs and legal experts are included below. Contact Hannah Sabio-Howell to arrange an interview.
“Justice is slow, but I’m glad we made it to this point. I hope the Court listens to the experiences of workers in this job. This job isn’t easy, and you don’t get compensated much. You’re there 24/7, taking care of up to six people at the same time that all have different needs, exposed to diseases or possible back injuries every day, with no health benefits or the right to a 401k. I hope we come away with laws that protect us and that other Adult Family Care workers learn we deserve more.” – Hollee Christian Castillo, plaintiff
“The courage of the six workers I have the honor of representing is emblematic of the tenacity and commitment of this entire industry of workers. Adult Family Home workers care for elders and disabled loved ones day in and day out, and, since the creation of Adult Family Homes in the late 1980s, have worked in one of the few industries exempted from the right to fair pay and safe workplaces. It’s time for this shameful legacy in our labor laws to end in Washington state.” – Jeremiah Miller, Legal Director