The question in this rest and meal break class action was whether the State of Washington constituted an ?employer? under RCW 49.12 prior to 2003.? ?In 2003, the State enacted legislation (in response to the very lawsuit at issue in this case) saying that prior to the date of the bills? enactment, the State was not covered (but would be in the future).?? Before the 2003 amendment, the text of RCW 49.12 pretty clearly had? ?excluded? ?the? ?State? ?from?? the? ?statutory provision that supported the rest and meal break regulations,? but? the? regulations ?themselves seemed to include the State.?? Prior Washington case law had assumed the State was included. Without relying on the 2003 amendment, the Supreme ?Court ?unanimously ?held ?that ?prior ?to 2003, the State was not an employer for the purposes? of? RCW? 49.12.???? ?McGinnis? v. Washington, 99 P.3d 1240 (Oct. 28, 2004).