Pay Transparency Laws by State: Which States Require Salary Range in Job Postings

No federal statute requires employers to post a salary range — every meaningful pay-transparency obligation in the United States traces to state or city law.

The Equal Pay Act of 1963 (29 USC §206(d)) prohibits sex-based pay discrimination for substantially equal work, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act extends the protection across other protected classes. Neither requires disclosure. The burden has always sat with the employee to discover the disparity and prove the cause; the pay-transparency movement is the legislative answer to that asymmetry.

Sixteen states and the District of Columbia have enacted job-posting disclosure laws as of May 2026, with Maine effective July 29, 2026, Virginia effective July 1, 2026, and Delaware effective September 26, 2027. Penalties run from $100 per violation in California, Colorado, and Washington up to $250,000 per violation in New York City under NYC Admin Code §8-107(32). Washington's private right of action under RCW §49.58.110 has driven more than 300 putative class-action filings since June 2024, the largest pay-transparency litigation wave in the country.

Skip to the state-by-state table →

Quick reference

• Federal floor: No statute requires salary-range disclosure in job postings. The Equal Pay Act (29 USC §206(d)), Title VII (42 USC §2000e-2), and FLSA §215(a)(3) anti-retaliation are the touchpoints.
• States with job-posting disclosure laws (effective): California, Colorado, Connecticut (on request), Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island (on request), Vermont, Washington, plus DC. 13 states + DC.
• States with disclosure laws not yet effective: Maine (July 29, 2026), Virginia (July 1, 2026), Delaware (September 26, 2027).
• City ordinances: New York City (Nov 1, 2022); Jersey City, NJ; Ithaca, NY; Cincinnati, Toledo, Cleveland, and Columbus, OH.
• Pay-data reporting (separate obligation): California SB 1162, Illinois EPRC, Massachusetts EEO reporting.
• Highest single-violation penalty: NYC at $250,000 per uncorrected violation (NYC Admin Code §8-126).
• Largest enforcement wave: 300+ Washington class actions since June 2024 under RCW §49.58.110; Branson v. Washington Fine Wine & Spirits, LLC, 562 P.3d 488 (Wash. 2025), expanded standing.
• Strictest threshold: 1 employee — Colorado, Connecticut, DC, Maryland, Rhode Island, Vermont (5+ but broad coverage), and Virginia (post-7/1/2026).
• "Good faith" standard: nearly universal definitional anchor; NYC guidance is the most-cited gloss.

The 5 most expensive pay transparency mistakes

1. Posting a range so wide it fails the good-faith test. Washington's Branson v. Washington Fine Wine & Spirits, LLC, 562 P.3d 488 (Wash. 2025), held that a job applicant need not be bona fide to bring an RCW §49.58.110 claim, opening the door to scraper-driven lawsuits against postings missing or padding the range. The Washington class-action wave exceeded 300 filings between June 2024 and early 2026; Emery Reddy alone filed 31 in a single week against Adidas, Insight Global, Albertsons, and others. Statutory damages run $100 to $5,000 per violation plus equitable relief and attorney's fees under RCW §49.58.110(3).
2. Treating remote postings as out-of-state-only. Colorado interprets the Equal Pay for Equal Work Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. §8-5-201 et seq., to reach any remote posting a Colorado resident could perform; the early "remote workers excluded" carve-out was eliminated by 2023 amendments. New York Lab. Law §194-b(2)(a) extends to roles physically performed outside New York that report to a New York supervisor or office. Maine LD 54 (eff. July 29, 2026) covers postings that can be performed in Maine.
3. Forgetting California SB 1162 pay-data reporting deadlines. Cal. Gov. Code §12999 requires private employers with 100+ U.S. employees and at least one California worker to file annual pay-data reports with the Civil Rights Department covering mean and median hourly rates by sex/ethnicity/race × job category × pay band. Reporting year 2025 reports were due May 13, 2026. Penalty: $100 per employee for first failure; $200 per employee thereafter.
4. Missing the NYC $250,000 ceiling. NYC Admin Code §8-107(32), enforced under §8-126, exposes employers to a civil penalty of up to $250,000 for each uncorrected first violation and each subsequent violation. The 30-day cure window for first-time violations is the only practical shield; missing it converts a paperwork lapse into six-figure exposure per posting.
5. Conflating "salary history ban" with "salary-range disclosure." They are separate obligations and most pay-transparency states impose both, but the timelines differ. Maryland's salary-history ban took effect October 2020; the wage-range disclosure requirement layered on top of it October 1, 2024 under Md. Code Lab. & Empl. §3-304.2. New York City's salary-history ban (NYC Admin Code §8-107(25)) predates the §8-107(32) posting requirement by five years. Employers compliant on one obligation routinely fail the other.

The federal floor

No federal posting requirement

The Fair Labor Standards Act, the Equal Pay Act, and Title VII collectively impose no obligation to publish a salary range in job postings. The Equal Pay Act of 1963, codified at 29 USC §206(d)(1), prohibits sex-based pay discrimination for "equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar working conditions" but is silent on disclosure. The EEOC enforces the EPA; remedies are limited to the wage differential plus liquidated damages.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 USC §2000e-2, prohibits pay discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 (Pub. L. No. 111-2) restarts the limitations period at each discriminatory paycheck under 42 USC §2000e-5(e)(3), but it too creates no posting obligation.

EEOC pay-data collection — the on-and-off Component 2

The EEOC's EEO-1 demographic report (29 CFR §1602.7) collects sex/race/ethnicity data by job category from private employers with 100+ employees. The "Component 2" pay-band data collection was proposed in 2016, paused after the 2018 collection year by Office of Management and Budget action, and never restored. The EEOC's Strategic Enforcement Plan for FY 2024–2028 names pay equity as a substantive area priority and signals continued interest in pay-data analytics for systemic investigations, but no federal pay-data reporting mandate exists for private employers as of May 2026.

FLSA §215(a)(3) anti-retaliation

The FLSA's anti-retaliation provision at 29 USC §215(a)(3) protects employees who file a complaint, testify in a proceeding, or assert FLSA rights. The National Labor Relations Act, 29 USC §157, separately protects "concerted activity" — including wage discussions — among non-supervisory workers regardless of union status. These provisions support employees' ability to discover and discuss pay information; they do not require employers to disclose ranges affirmatively.

Federal contractors — OFCCP and Executive Order 11246

Federal contractors subject to Executive Order 11246 and 41 CFR §60-1 et seq. face additional pay-equity obligations enforced by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), including affirmative-action plans and compensation analyses. The Pay Transparency Final Rule at 41 CFR §60-1.35 prohibits federal contractors from discriminating against applicants or employees who inquire about, discuss, or disclose their compensation. The rule does not require posting a range in job advertisements; it prohibits retaliating against employees who discuss their pay.

State landscape — the "good faith" standard

Most state pay-transparency statutes share a structural anchor: the employer must disclose a "good faith estimate" of the salary range the employer reasonably expects to pay. The New York City Commission on Human Rights' pay transparency guidance defines the term as "the salary range the employer honestly believes at the time they are listing the job advertisement that they are willing to pay the successful applicant(s)."

California's SB 642 (2025), effective January 1, 2026, amended Cal. Lab. Code §432.3 to tighten the definition further: "pay scale" now means "a good faith estimate of the salary or hourly wage range that the employer reasonably expects to pay for the position upon hire." The "upon hire" phrase narrows the range from a broader position-band to the compensation expected for the actual successful candidate. Practitioner consensus interprets it as a tighter range than the pre-SB-642 standard.

Range-width discipline is not numerically codified in any state, but case law and enforcement guidance treat overly broad ranges as failing good faith. The NYC Commission has issued informal guidance that ranges must be reasonable for the specific role; Washington's class-action wave has flagged unreasonable ranges in some filings. The practical floor is whatever the employer can defend as the band it would actually pay; the practical ceiling is whatever a court reviewing the §49.58.110 plaintiff bar would treat as evasive.

California — the strictest state

California's pay-transparency regime is the most comprehensive in the country: posting disclosure, current-employee disclosure, salary-history ban, and the SB 1162 pay-data reporting obligation all operate concurrently.

Cal. Lab. Code §432.3 — the posting requirement

Cal. Lab. Code §432.3, as amended by SB 1162 (2022) and SB 642 (2025), requires:

• Threshold: 15 or more employees, with at least one employee currently working in California.
• Posting: Pay scale (the good-faith range upon hire) in any job posting, including postings managed by third-party recruiters and job boards.
• Current employees: Pay scale provided to current employees on request.
• Salary-history ban: Cal. Lab. Code §432.3(b) prohibits inquiring about an applicant's prior compensation directly or through agents. Voluntarily disclosed history may be considered but cannot be sought.
• Recordkeeping: Employers must maintain records of job titles and wage-rate history for each employee for the duration of employment plus three years.

SB 642 (2025) — the 2026 amendments

SB 642, signed October 2025 and effective January 1, 2026, made four operative changes:

1. Tightened the "pay scale" definition to the range "upon hire" rather than the broader position-band.
2. Expanded "wages" and "wage rates" under the California Equal Pay Act, Cal. Lab. Code §1197.5, to include the entire compensation package: incentive compensation, expense reimbursement, stock awards, and similar items.
3. Extended anti-discrimination protection under §1197.5 to "another sex," reaching non-binary genders explicitly.
4. Extended the statute of limitations under §1197.5 from two years to three years from the alleged violation, with recovery reaching back six years where willful.

SB 1162 pay-data reporting — Cal. Gov. Code §12999

Cal. Gov. Code §12999 imposes annual pay-data reporting on private employers with 100 or more employees nationwide AND at least one employee in California. Reports cover:

• Mean and median hourly rate by establishment, by job category, by sex/ethnicity/race × pay band.
• Beginning with reporting year 2026 reports (due May 2027), the SOC-based job categorization expands from 10 EEO-1 categories to 23 SOC job categories.

The Civil Rights Department enforces and maintains the reports under Cal. Code Regs. tit. 2 §11000. Penalties: $100 per employee for the first failure; $200 per employee for subsequent failures.

Penalties for posting violations

Cal. Lab. Code §432.3(d) authorizes the Labor Commissioner to impose civil penalties of $100 to $10,000 per violation. First-time violations may be waived if the employer demonstrates a good-faith effort to come into compliance.

Things employers consistently miss

• Third-party postings count. A staffing agency, recruiter, or job board posting the role must include the range; the employer is on the hook even when the listing isn't direct.
• Remote postings reach California. A fully-remote role open to candidates anywhere is subject to §432.3 if a California resident could perform it. The simplest defensive posture is to include the California range on every multi-state posting.
• "Upon hire" narrows the range. Pre-SB-642 ranges like $80,000–$200,000 for a single role would likely fail the §432.3 good-faith standard under the 2026 definition.
• SB 1162 pay-data reporting is independent of the posting rule. An employer with 100+ U.S. employees but no current California posting still owes the pay-data report if even one California employee exists.

State-by-state table

State	Effective date	Threshold	What must be disclosed	Citation
Alabama	—	—	No statute	—
Alaska	—	—	No statute	—
Arizona	—	—	No statute	—
Arkansas	—	—	No statute	—
California	Jan 1, 2023 (§432.3); SB 642 amendments Jan 1, 2026	15+ employees, 1+ in CA	Pay scale (range upon hire) in postings; on request to current employees	Cal. Lab. Code §432.3
Colorado	Jan 1, 2021 (orig.); Jan 1, 2024 (amendments)	1+ employee in CO	Pay range + benefits description in all postings	Colo. Rev. Stat. §8-5-201 et seq.
Connecticut	Oct 1, 2021	1+ employee	Wage range on applicant request or before offer; current employees on request	Conn. Gen. Stat. §31-40z
Delaware	Sept 26, 2027	26+ employees	Good-faith pay range + benefits in internal and external postings	19 Del. C. §709C (HB 105 / HS 2, 2025)
DC	June 30, 2024	1+ employee in DC	Min/max salary + healthcare benefits description before first interview	D.C. Code §32-1452
Florida	—	—	No statute	—
Georgia	—	—	No statute	—
Hawaii	Jan 1, 2024	50+ employees	Hourly rate or salary range in postings	HRS §378-2.4 (Act 203, 2023)
Idaho	—	—	No statute	—
Illinois	Jan 1, 2025	15+ employees	Pay scale + benefits in all postings (incl. third-party)	820 ILCS 112/10(b-5)
Indiana	—	—	No statute	—
Iowa	—	—	No statute	—
Kansas	—	—	No statute	—
Kentucky	—	—	No statute	—
Louisiana	—	—	No statute	—
Maine	July 29, 2026	10+ employees	Range of compensation in postings (incl. third-party)	26 M.R.S. §622-A (LD 54, 2026)
Maryland	Oct 1, 2024	1+ employee	Wage range + benefits + other compensation in postings	Md. Code Lab. & Empl. §3-304.2
Massachusetts	Oct 29, 2025	25+ employees in MA	Pay range in postings + on request to current employees	Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149 §105F (Ch. 141 of 2024)
Michigan	—	—	No statute	—
Minnesota	Jan 1, 2025	30+ employees	Starting salary range or fixed rate + benefits description	Minn. Stat. §181.173
Mississippi	—	—	No statute	—
Missouri	—	—	No statute	—
Montana	—	—	No statute	—
Nebraska	—	—	No statute	—
Nevada	—	—	No statute	—
New Hampshire	—	—	No statute	—
New Jersey	June 1, 2025	10+ employees	Hourly wage or salary (or range) + benefits description	N.J.S.A. §34:6B-22 et seq.
New Mexico	—	—	No statute	—
New York	Sept 17, 2023	4+ employees	Compensation range + job description in postings	N.Y. Lab. Law §194-b
North Carolina	—	—	No statute	—
North Dakota	—	—	No statute	—
Ohio	—	—	No state statute (cities: Cincinnati, Toledo, Cleveland, Columbus)	—
Oklahoma	—	—	No statute	—
Oregon	—	—	No posting requirement (Equal Pay Act 2017 bans salary-history inquiries)	ORS §652.220
Pennsylvania	—	—	No statute	—
Rhode Island	Jan 1, 2023	1+ employee	Wage range on applicant request before discussing pay; current employees on request	R.I. Gen. Laws §28-6-22
South Carolina	—	—	No statute	—
South Dakota	—	—	No statute	—
Tennessee	—	—	No statute	—
Texas	—	—	No statute	—
Utah	—	—	No statute	—
Vermont	July 1, 2025	5+ employees, 1+ in VT	Wage or wage range in public postings	21 V.S.A. §495m (Act 155 of 2024)
Virginia	July 1, 2026	1+ employee	Wage/salary or range in postings; 15-business-day cure period	Va. Code §40.1-28.7:12 (HB 636/SB 215, 2026)
Washington	Jan 1, 2023	15+ employees (1+ in WA triggers)	Wage scale or salary range + benefits description in postings	RCW §49.58.110
West Virginia	—	—	No statute	—
Wisconsin	—	—	No statute	—
Wyoming	—	—	No statute	—

City ordinances

Where the city ordinance adds to state law (NY, NJ) or stands alone (the Ohio cities), the local requirement controls jobs within the city's jurisdiction.

City	Effective	Threshold	Requirement	Citation
New York City	Nov 1, 2022	4+ employees, 1+ in NYC	Good-faith salary range in postings for jobs / promotions / transfers	NYC Admin Code §8-107(32)
Jersey City, NJ	March 2022	5+ employees, principal place in JC	Min/max salary or hourly range in postings	Jersey City Ord. 21-076
Ithaca, NY	Sept 1, 2022	4+ employees	Salary range in postings	Ithaca City Code §215 (Local Law 2022-3)
Cincinnati, OH	March 13, 2020	15+ employees	Salary range on candidate's request after conditional offer	Cincinnati Mun. Code §804
Toledo, OH	June 25, 2020	15+ employees	Salary range on candidate's request after conditional offer	Toledo Mun. Code §768
Cleveland, OH	Oct 27, 2025	15+ employees, 1+ in Cleveland	Salary range or scale in all postings; salary-history ban	Cleveland Codified Ord. §671
Columbus, OH	Dec 3, 2025 (enforcement Jan 1, 2027)	15+ employees in city	Reasonable salary range or scale in postings; salary-history ban	Columbus City Ord. 2898-2025

NYC's $250,000 penalty

NYC Admin Code §8-126 authorizes the Commission on Human Rights to impose civil penalties of up to $250,000 per uncorrected violation. A first-time violation carries a 30-day cure period; if cured within that window, no penalty attaches. After 30 days, every subsequent violation can compound the exposure. Civil penalties run in addition to compensatory and punitive damages available in private enforcement actions under NYC Admin Code §8-502.

Pay-data reporting — the parallel obligation

Pay-data reporting is a separate statutory layer from posting disclosure and reaches different employers under different thresholds. Three states impose it:

• California SB 1162 (Cal. Gov. Code §12999). 100+ U.S. employees AND 1+ in CA. Annual reports to the Civil Rights Department. RY 2025 due May 13, 2026; RY 2026 (due May 2027) expands from 10 EEO-1 categories to 23 SOC categories.
• Illinois Equal Pay Registration Certificate (820 ILCS 112/11). 100+ employees in Illinois. Certificate renewal every two years; the Illinois Department of Labor enforces.
• Massachusetts EEO data reporting (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149 §105F(c), eff. Feb 1, 2025). 100+ MA employees must submit EEO-1, EEO-3, or EEO-5 wage-data reports to the Massachusetts Secretary of State.

Employers commonly confuse the two obligations: a 50-employee employer with one California posting owes §432.3 range disclosure but not §12999 pay-data reporting; a 500-employee employer with no California postings still owes the Cal. Gov. Code §12999 report if even one California employee exists.

Industry-specific carve-outs

Pay-transparency laws contain narrower carve-outs than wage-and-hour statutes. The most material exclusions:

• Public-sector employment — Hawaii's HRS §378-2.4 carves out public-employee union positions covered by a collective bargaining agreement. California §432.3 includes public employers by default; New York §194-b applies to public employers by silence.
• Internal transfers and promotions — Hawaii's statute carves these out explicitly; New York §194-b explicitly includes them ("any job, promotion, or transfer opportunity"); Vermont's 21 V.S.A. §495m applies to internal promotions where opened to outside candidates.
• Commission-only roles — Vermont's statute requires the posting to indicate commission-based compensation in lieu of a fixed range; California, Washington, and Colorado require a "wage scale or salary range" that practitioners interpret to include the commission structure.
• Roles paid wholly in tips — Most statutes are silent; the Vermont commission carve-out is the cleanest model. Washington's RCW §49.58.110 has been read to require the base hourly wage plus a description of how tips factor in.
• Multi-employer collective bargaining — No state pay-transparency law overrides the duty to bargain over wages under the National Labor Relations Act; postings for represented positions still require the CBA-specified rate or range.

Multi-state and remote workers

The work-location principle that governs wage-and-hour law largely carries over to pay-transparency law, with two important divergences: most state statutes reach remote postings the state's residents could perform, and the trigger is the job-posting jurisdiction, not the employee's actual work location.

Three scenarios:

• Remote-eligible posting nationwide. A fully-remote role open to any U.S. candidate is subject to California §432.3, Colorado §8-5-201, New York §194-b (if reporting to a NY supervisor), Maine §622-A (after July 29, 2026), Washington §49.58.110, and Virginia §40.1-28.7:12 (after July 1, 2026), among others. The simplest defensive posture is a single range that satisfies the strictest state's good-faith standard. Regional ranges (e.g., $95K-$130K in NYC; $80K-$110K nationally) are acceptable when the regional differential reflects actual compensation practice.
• Hybrid posting tied to a single office. A New York-based hybrid role for a candidate expected to be in the NYC office three days per week falls under NYC Admin Code §8-107(32) plus NY Lab. Law §194-b. The posting requirement is concurrent — the NYC $250,000 ceiling controls because the state penalty caps lower.
• Roles available only outside disclosure states. A posting that explicitly excludes residents of pay-transparency states from applying is rare and risk-positive. Colorado has not honored the carve-out; New York reads §194-b to apply to any posting where the work could be performed by a candidate reporting to a NY-based supervisor. Maine's statute uses "can be performed in Maine" language. The practical effect: very few employers can credibly post for a remote role and exclude every pay-transparency state.

Recent changes (last 18 months)

• October 27, 2025 — Cleveland Codified Ordinances §671 amendments take effect, requiring salary range or scale in all postings for employers with 15+ employees and 1+ in Cleveland.
• October 29, 2025 — Massachusetts Chapter 141 of the Acts of 2024 (the Frances Perkins Workplace Equity Act) takes effect, codified at Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149 §105F.
• December 3, 2025 — Columbus City Ordinance 2898-2025 takes effect; enforcement deferred to January 1, 2027.
• January 1, 2026 — California SB 642 amendments to Cal. Lab. Code §432.3 and §1197.5 take effect.
• March 25, 2026 — Branson v. Washington Fine Wine & Spirits, LLC, 562 P.3d 488 (Wash. 2025), holding that an "applicant" under RCW §49.58.110 need not be bona fide, was published in Pacific Reporter Third Series. The Washington Supreme Court's decision opened standing to job-seekers who would not have accepted the role.
• April 2026 — Virginia HB 636 / SB 215 signed by Governor Spanberger, codifying Va. Code §40.1-28.7:12; effective July 1, 2026.
• May 13, 2026 — California SB 1162 pay-data reporting deadline for reporting year 2025 (Cal. Gov. Code §12999).
• July 1, 2026 — Virginia Va. Code §40.1-28.7:12 takes effect. 1-employee threshold, 15-business-day cure period.
• July 29, 2026 — Maine 26 M.R.S. §622-A (LD 54, 2026) takes effect. 10-employee threshold.
• September 26, 2027 — Delaware 19 Del. C. §709C (HB 105 / HS 2, 2025) takes effect. 26-employee threshold.

Penalty matrix

Jurisdiction	First violation	Subsequent	Enforcement	Notes
California	$100	up to $10,000 per violation	Labor Commissioner	First waivable on showing of good-faith cure (Lab. Code §432.3(d))
Colorado	$500	up to $10,000 per violation	CDLE	Colo. Rev. Stat. §8-5-203
Connecticut	(private right of action)	—	Private + Department of Labor	Compensatory and punitive damages; Conn. Gen. Stat. §31-40z(c)
DC	up to $1,000	up to $20,000	DC Office of Human Rights	D.C. Code §32-1455
Hawaii	up to $500	up to $1,000	Hawaii Civil Rights Commission	HRS §378-5(a)
Illinois	$500 (within 5-year window)	$2,500 second; $10,000 third+	IDOL	820 ILCS 112/30
Maryland	(initial: order to comply)	up to $300 third+ violation	Maryland DLLR	Md. Code Lab. & Empl. §3-308
Massachusetts	warning	monetary	MA Attorney General	Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149 §105F(g)
Minnesota	(compliance enforcement)	—	Minn. DLI	Minn. Stat. §181.171
New Jersey	up to $300	up to $600 third+	NJDOL	N.J.S.A. §34:6B-26
New York	up to $1,000	up to $3,000	NY DOL	NY Lab. Law §194-b(5)
Rhode Island	(private right of action + DOLT)	—	RI DLT	R.I. Gen. Laws §28-6-21
Vermont	(compliance enforcement)	—	VT AG / DOL	21 V.S.A. §495b
Virginia	$1,000	$5,000 third+	VA DOL; private right of action	Va. Code §40.1-28.7:12(F); 15-business-day cure
Washington	$100	up to $5,000 per violation	L&I + private right of action	RCW §49.58.110(3); cure window through July 27, 2027
NYC	up to $250,000 per uncorrected violation	up to $250,000	NYC Commission on Human Rights	30-day first-time cure (NYC Admin Code §8-126)

Notable enforcement and class actions

• Washington class-action wave. RCW §49.58.110 created a private right of action with statutory damages of $100 to $5,000 per violation plus attorney's fees. More than 300 putative class actions have been filed since June 2024 against defendants including Adidas, Insight Global, Albertsons, Marriott, and major retailers; Emery Reddy alone filed 31 in a single one-week sweep in 2024. The Washington Department of Labor and Industries' pay transparency administrative policy provides the agency interpretation. Branson v. Washington Fine Wine & Spirits, LLC, 562 P.3d 488 (Wash. 2025), held that the statutory phrase "job applicant" reaches applicants who would not have accepted an offer, allowing scraper-driven class actions. A statutory cure period through July 27, 2027 permits employers to correct deficient ads to limit penalties.
• Goldman Sachs settlement. Chen-Oster v. Goldman Sachs & Co., No. 1:10-cv-06950 (S.D.N.Y. 2023), settled for $215 million on gender pay-discrimination class allegations under Title VII and the New York Equal Pay Law. The settlement followed years of contested certification and is the largest single-employer pay-equity settlement on record.
• EEOC Strategic Enforcement Plan FY 2024–2028. The EEOC's plan named pay-equity enforcement as a substantive area priority, including pay data analytics for systemic investigations.
• California Civil Rights Department §12999 enforcement. No public report of a §12999 penalty exceeding $1 million has been published as of May 2026; enforcement actions have generally been administrative compliance orders rather than litigated penalties.

FAQ

Does federal law require employers to post a salary range?

No. As of May 2026, no federal statute requires private employers to disclose a salary range in job postings. The Equal Pay Act (29 USC §206(d)), Title VII (42 USC §2000e-2), and FLSA §215(a)(3) anti-retaliation create discrimination remedies and protect wage discussions but impose no posting obligation. Federal contractors face additional pay-equity obligations under 41 CFR §60-1.35 but not affirmative posting.

Which states require salary ranges in job postings as of May 2026?

Thirteen states (California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Vermont, Washington — plus Connecticut and Rhode Island on request) and the District of Columbia have effective laws. Three states have enacted laws not yet in force: Virginia (effective July 1, 2026), Maine (effective July 29, 2026), and Delaware (effective September 26, 2027).

What is a "good faith" salary range under New York or California law?

NYC's Commission on Human Rights guidance defines "good faith" as the range the employer "honestly believes at the time they are listing the job advertisement that they are willing to pay the successful applicant(s)." California's SB 642 amendments to Cal. Lab. Code §432.3 (effective Jan 1, 2026) further specify the range the employer "reasonably expects to pay for the position upon hire." Practitioner consensus and informal enforcement guidance treat overly broad ranges as failing the standard.

Do pay-transparency laws apply to remote postings?

Most state statutes reach remote postings the state's residents could perform. Colorado has consistently interpreted Colo. Rev. Stat. §8-5-201 to reach remote postings. California §432.3 applies to any role a California resident could perform. New York §194-b applies to roles that report to a New York supervisor or office. Maine §622-A applies after July 29, 2026 when a role can be performed in Maine. The defensive posture for multi-state employers is a single posting range that satisfies the strictest applicable state.

What is California SB 1162 pay-data reporting?

Cal. Gov. Code §12999 imposes annual pay-data reporting on private employers with 100 or more U.S. employees and at least one California employee. Reports cover mean and median hourly rates by job category by sex/ethnicity/race × pay band, filed with the California Civil Rights Department. RY 2025 reports were due May 13, 2026. Beginning with RY 2026 reports (due May 2027), the categorization expands from 10 EEO-1 to 23 SOC job categories. Penalties: $100 per employee first failure; $200 per employee subsequent.

How much can an employer be penalized for a pay-transparency violation?

Penalties range from $100 per violation (California, Washington) to $250,000 per uncorrected violation (NYC under §8-126). Most states fall in the $1,000–$10,000 per-violation range. Connecticut and Rhode Island allow private rights of action with compensatory and punitive damages. Washington's RCW §49.58.110 also provides a private right of action with statutory damages of $100 to $5,000 per violation plus attorney's fees — the basis for the 300+ class-action wave since 2024.

What is the difference between a salary-history ban and a pay-transparency law?

A salary-history ban prohibits employers from inquiring about an applicant's prior compensation. A pay-transparency law requires the employer to disclose the range it will pay. The two are independent obligations; most pay-transparency states have both, but the timelines differ. Maryland's salary-history ban took effect October 2020; the wage-range disclosure requirement layered on October 1, 2024. New York City's salary-history ban predates the posting requirement by five years.

Are city ordinances preempted by state law in pay-transparency?

No general preemption applies. NYC, Jersey City, Ithaca, Cincinnati, Toledo, Cleveland, and Columbus each enforce ordinances concurrently with applicable state law. Where state and city rules differ, the stricter rule controls postings within the city's jurisdiction. NYC's $250,000 penalty ceiling exceeds the New York state $3,000 ceiling under §194-b(5), so NYC enforcement is the operative exposure for postings tied to NYC.

If you discover you've been doing this wrong

1. Inventory active postings against current state coverage. Pull every job posting (direct, recruiter, job board, internal) currently live for any role that could be performed in California, Colorado, Connecticut, DC, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, or NYC/Jersey City/Ithaca/Cincinnati/Toledo/Cleveland. Map each posting to the jurisdictions whose disclosure rules apply.
2. Cure within the available windows. Washington's cure period under RCW §49.58.110 runs through July 27, 2027; NYC's first-violation cure window is 30 days; Virginia's (after July 1, 2026) is 15 business days. Adding a compliant range to a deficient posting within the cure window typically avoids penalties; missing the window converts to per-violation exposure that can be multiplied across postings.
3. Pull current-employee pay-scale request response into a documented process. California §432.3, Connecticut §31-40z, Massachusetts §105F, and Rhode Island §28-6-22 require pay-scale disclosure to current employees on request. The compliance failure pattern is having no process; standing up a documented request-and-response procedure (with timeliness expectations) is the foundational fix.
4. Verify pay-data reporting filings. Employers with 100+ U.S. employees and any California presence owe Cal. Gov. Code §12999 reports — annually, by mid-May, RY-2025-by-May-2026 / RY-2026-by-May-2027. Illinois 100+ employers owe the EPRC certificate; Massachusetts 100+ MA employers owe EEO data reports. Missed filings compound year-over-year and reach the per-employee penalty schedule.
5. Run a §1197.5 pay-equity audit before disclosure forces the question. California Cal. Lab. Code §1197.5 provides a good-faith-audit defense to equal-pay claims when the employer demonstrates reliance on a comprehensive pay-equity audit. Volunteer audit + remediation is the only mechanism that converts a future disparity from per-employee back-pay exposure to a documented compliance posture. Once a range is disclosed and current employees see comparator data, latent disparities surface; audit before disclosure forces the question.

The bottom line

Pay transparency is the rare wage-and-hour topic where the federal floor is zero and state law carries the entire load. Sixteen states and DC have effective posting laws; three more take effect in 2026–2027; seven cities run concurrent ordinances; California, Illinois, and Massachusetts impose parallel pay-data reporting on 100+ employers; and Washington has produced the largest enforcement wave in the country with 300+ class actions since June 2024.

The structural failure modes recur: posting a range too wide to defend under the good-faith standard, treating remote postings as out-of-state-only, missing a pay-data reporting deadline that compounds across employees, or running afoul of NYC's $250,000 per-violation ceiling because the 30-day cure window passed. Each compounds across postings, multiplies under per-employee or per-posting damages, and reaches further under private rights of action in Connecticut, Rhode Island, Virginia, and Washington.

The highest-leverage operational discipline is the single defensible range. A range built on a documented compensation philosophy, narrowed to the role "upon hire," and posted uniformly across multi-state postings satisfies the strictest applicable state by construction; it also primes the §1197.5 good-faith-audit defense if a disparity claim follows. Everything else — cure windows, jurisdictional carve-outs, third-party posting policing — is downstream of getting that single range right.

Sources

Federal statutes and regulations

• 29 USC §206(d) — Equal Pay Act: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/206
• 42 USC §2000e-2 — Title VII employment discrimination: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000e-2
• 29 USC §215(a)(3) — FLSA anti-retaliation: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/215
• 29 USC §157 — NLRA concerted activity: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/29/157
• 41 CFR §60-1.35 — OFCCP pay transparency rule: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/41/60-1.35
• 29 CFR §1602.7 — EEO-1 reporting: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/1602.7
• Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 (Pub. L. No. 111-2): https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/senate-bill/181

Federal agency guidance

• EEOC Strategic Enforcement Plan FY 2024–2028: https://www.eeoc.gov/strategic-enforcement-plan-fiscal-years-2024-2028
• EEOC Pay Discrimination Enforcement Guidance: https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/enforcement-guidance-pay-discrimination

State statutes

• California Cal. Lab. Code §432.3: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=432.3
• California Cal. Lab. Code §1197.5: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=1197.5
• California Cal. Gov. Code §12999: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=12999
• California SB 642 (2025): https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB642
• Colorado Equal Pay for Equal Work Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. §8-5-201 et seq.: https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2019a_085_signed.pdf
• Connecticut Conn. Gen. Stat. §31-40z: https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_557.htm#sec_31-40z
• Delaware 19 Del. C. §709C (HB 105 / HS 2, 2025): https://legis.delaware.gov/BillDetail/142429
• District of Columbia D.C. Code §32-1452: https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/32-1452
• Hawaii HRS §378-2.4 (Act 203, 2023): https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/sessions/session2023/bills/SB1057_CD1_.HTM
• Illinois 820 ILCS 112/10(b-5): https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=082001120HArt%2E+10&ActID=2867&ChapterID=68
• Maine 26 M.R.S. §622-A (LD 54, 2026): https://legislature.maine.gov/legis/bills/display_ps.asp?LD=54&snum=132
• Maryland Md. Code Lab. & Empl. §3-304.2: https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/chapters_noln/Ch_271_hb0649T.pdf
• Massachusetts Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149 §105F (Ch. 141 of 2024): https://malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2024/Chapter141
• Minnesota Minn. Stat. §181.173: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/181.173
• New Jersey N.J.S.A. §34:6B-22 et seq.: https://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2024/Bills/AL24/91_.PDF
• New York N.Y. Lab. Law §194-b: https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/LAB/194-B
• Rhode Island R.I. Gen. Laws §28-6-22: https://webserver.rilegislature.gov/Statutes/TITLE28/28-6/28-6-22.htm
• Vermont 21 V.S.A. §495m (Act 155 of 2024): https://legislature.vermont.gov/bill/status/2024/H.704
• Virginia Va. Code §40.1-28.7:12 (HB 636/SB 215, 2026): https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?262+ful+HB636
• Washington RCW §49.58.110: https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=49.58.110

City ordinances

• NYC Admin Code §8-107(32) and §8-126: https://www.nyc.gov/site/cchr/media/pay-transparency.page
• Jersey City, NJ Ord. 21-076: https://jerseycitynj.gov
• Ithaca, NY Local Law 2022-3: https://www.cityofithaca.org/DocumentCenter
• Cincinnati Mun. Code §804 (Pay Equity Ordinance): https://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/law
• Toledo Mun. Code §768 (Pay Equity Act): https://toledo.oh.gov
• Cleveland Codified Ord. §671: https://library.municode.com/oh/cleveland
• Columbus City Ord. 2898-2025: https://columbus.legistar.com

Case law

• Branson v. Washington Fine Wine & Spirits, LLC, 562 P.3d 488 (Wash. 2025): https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.opindisp&docid=1027544MAJ
• Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., No. 1:10-cv-06950 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) (class settlement): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.366974/gov.uscourts.nysd.366974.964.0.pdf

State agency guidance

• California Civil Rights Department SB 1162 pay-data reporting guidance: https://calcivilrights.ca.gov/paydatareporting/
• New York Department of Labor pay-transparency guidance: https://dol.ny.gov/pay-transparency
• Washington L&I pay transparency administrative policy ESE 1.81: https://lni.wa.gov/workers-rights/_docs/ese1.81.pdf
• NYC Commission on Human Rights pay transparency guidance: https://www.nyc.gov/site/cchr/media/pay-transparency.page
• Colorado CDLE INFO #9 (Equal Pay Transparency Rules): https://cdle.colorado.gov/sites/cdle/files/INFO%20%239_0.pdf