Washington justices wade into wage protection exemptions for live-in caregivers

OLYMPIA, Wash. (CN) — A group of live-in caregivers in Washington state asked the state Supreme Court on Tuesday to uphold a ruling that found their exemption from minimum wage protections unconstitutional, while an adult family care home urged the court to reverse the judgment.

“I’m here today because health care is complicated,” Albert Kirby, an attorney with the Seattle Litigation Group representing the adult family care home, told the justices.

Under the Washington Minimum Wage Requirements and Labor Standards Act, any worker whose duties “require that he or she reside or sleep at the place of his or her employment or who otherwise spends a substantial portion of his or her work time subject to call, and not engaged in the performance of active duties” is exempt from the law and denied all wage and sick leave protections.

In 2023, a group of caregivers who worked at various times between 2014 and 2021 in adult family homes operated by the Washington company AssureCare sued the company, arguing the act’s exemption for workers who are required to live on-site violates their constitutional rights to equal protection.

A King County Superior Court judge ruled in favor of the caregivers in 2024, finding that the live-in exclusion of the act violates the state Constitution as it applies to caregivers who live at the adult family homes where they also work. But the court didn’t decide whether the decision should apply prospectively.

Before the Supreme Court, Kirby argued the working conditions of the family home weren’t harmful, noting it was uncontroverted that there had only been one workers’ compensation claim. But, Supreme Court Justice Steven Gonzalez likewise noted it was uncontroverted that some workers were on shift for 16 hours and experienced severe conditions.

Gonzalez referenced testimony from the plaintiffs, who said their sleep was interrupted almost every night, that they were hit, slapped, pushed and spat on by residents, and that they suffered from chronic pain and emotional distress.

“Is it your client’s position that these working conditions are not deleterious to the health of their workers?” Gonzalez asked.

Indeed, the care facility refuted the characterization of the working conditions.

“The safety record says that it’s a safe working environment,” Kirby said, arguing that AssureCare was being used as a proxy for all 2,800 adult family homes in the state for a constitutional challenge when, in fact, AssureCare has no record of dangerous conditions.

Rather than accruing an hourly wage, the workers are paid a stipend of between $120 and $880 per day, asserted Kirby, and by law, adult family homes are required to have staff live on site.

“This is not so deleterious in life that additional safeguards need to be enacted by the Legislature than have already been enacted and already apply, especially if you look into existing regulations and laws enacted by the state,” Kirby argued.

But the caregivers tell a different story, one where the staff — primarily recent immigrants, people of color and predominantly women — are exposed to injury and illness but denied paid sick leave and other protections afforded to hourly staff.

Justice Barbara Madsen noted that the exemption applies to a broader swath of the workforce than just the plaintiffs, and questioned the difference between the conditions faced by the plaintiffs and those faced by employees protected by the act.

“If most people who work in the health care industry have those protections already and yet, that level of injury is still present, how do you distinguish your clients and show that more is necessary for them?” Madsen asked.

Jeremiah Miller, attorney with the Fair Work Center representing the caregivers, pointed to an expert report that found the 24-hour nature of the work led to an increased risk of injury and illness.

Madsen pressed the attorney about the statistics the expert used to form that opinion, noting that numbers were absent from the report.

“You don’t have a constitutional right to minimum wage laws — you don’t,” Madsen said. “You have the constitutional right to laws that are necessary for the protection of persons.”

The caregivers aren’t eligible for either minimum wage or overtime and don’t have any recourse aside from quitting if they are asked to work extra hours. Working long days is part of what makes the job dangerous, Miller said.

“ I think it would be hard to imagine that you wouldn’t have, as part of the necessary protections for working people in dangerous conditions, something like the Minimum Wage Act,” Miller said.

The Washington Supreme Court did not indicate when it would rule.