Salary Transparency Compliance Checker – Free Multi-Jurisdiction Assessment

It depends on the jurisdiction where the role can be performed and where the candidate is located. Most US salary transparency laws (CA, CO, NY, WA, IL, MD, etc.) require a good-faith pay range in public postings.

As of 2025, US states with active pay transparency laws include California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington — plus Washington D.C. and several cities.

Penalties vary: from civil fines per posting to private rights of action. Some jurisdictions allow employees and applicants to sue.

If the remote role can be performed from a regulated jurisdiction, that jurisdiction's rules typically apply.

The directive applies to employers operating in EU member states. Member states must transpose it into national law by June 7, 2026.

If the role is subject to a jurisdictional salary disclosure law, the requirement typically applies regardless of the platform — LinkedIn, Indeed, your careers site, or recruiter messages.

Several jurisdictions (e.g., Washington, Colorado) extend disclosure obligations to internal promotional opportunities.

A good-faith range is the range the employer genuinely expects to pay for the role at time of posting, based on documented bands and market data.

Excessively wide ranges may be challenged as not made in good faith and can trigger regulatory scrutiny.

No — salary-history inquiry bans are jurisdiction-specific. Several US states and cities ban the practice; recruiters operating across borders should default to not asking.

Yes. Many laws have employee thresholds (e.g., 15+ in California, 4+ in NY, 100+ for some EU reporting).

Quarterly audits are common; high-volume hiring teams should sample postings monthly.

In several jurisdictions both the employer and the agency can face liability.

Coverage varies. Some laws cover only employees; others extend to certain contractor arrangements.

EU member states must transpose the directive into national law by June 7, 2026.

The UK does not currently mandate salary disclosure in job ads, but gender pay gap reporting applies to employers with 250+ employees.

British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador have active rules; Ontario's law takes effect in 2026.

Not currently. Australia has banned pay secrecy clauses and requires WGEA gender pay gap reporting for employers with 100+ employees.

Pay transparency is about disclosing pay information; pay equity is about ensuring equal pay for equal or comparable work.

Use compensation benchmarking data, define role families, define levels within families, set min/mid/max for each level, and review annually.

Several jurisdictions (Washington, Colorado, NY) require disclosure of additional compensation context including bonuses, commissions, and benefits.

Some jurisdictions (Washington State, Colorado) require a general description of benefits and other compensation.

Several jurisdictions (e.g., Washington) provide private rights of action.

Transparency often surfaces internal pay equity issues; employers should plan for adjustment cycles after publishing ranges.

In some jurisdictions yes — Washington and Colorado both cover internal promotional opportunities.

Job posting archives with timestamps, salary band documentation, comp review minutes, and recruiter training logs.

Several jurisdictions require retention for at least the duration of the role plus 2–3 years after.

Generally no — most laws apply regardless of tax-exempt status if employee thresholds are met.

Yes — US federal contractors are subject to OFCCP requirements and salary disclosure obligations.

The EU directive is broader: candidate-facing pay info before interviews, salary-history bans, gender pay gap reporting, and joint pay assessments where gaps exceed 5%.

Most laws apply once an employee count threshold is met, not based on funding stage.

They are separate regulatory regimes but increasingly scrutinized together as worker mobility issues.

Several jurisdictions are introducing platform-worker pay transparency rules separate from traditional employment law.

No — "competitive", "DOE", or "negotiable" generally fail jurisdictional disclosure requirements.

Disclose the range in the currency relevant to the role location.

Generally regulators expect the local currency; check jurisdictional guidance.

Executive roles are typically covered when other employees are; some jurisdictions provide narrow exemptions.

If the internship is paid and meets coverage thresholds, yes in most regulated jurisdictions.

Either post jurisdiction-specific ranges or use a single range that complies with the most stringent jurisdiction.

They are typically not part of the role's base pay range but should be referenced in benefits sections.

Modern ATS can enforce required fields, store band references, and audit postings before publication.

Increasingly considered best practice; some jurisdictions require sharing ranges with current employees on request.

Research suggests transparency narrows gender and racial pay gaps and modestly compresses pay distributions.

Disclosures typically follow the language of the posting; multilingual postings should include consistent ranges across versions.

Acquired entities inherit obligations and may need to harmonize bands and disclosures.

AI-generated content does not change disclosure obligations; the employer remains liable for compliance.

Civil penalties of up to $10,000 per violation under SB 1162.

Civil penalties of up to $250,000 for repeated violations.

Audit current pay data, complete a gender pay gap analysis, document role classifications, and prepare candidate-facing pay disclosures by June 2026.

Expect continuous expansion through 2030 — new US states announce annually and EU member states transpose through 2026.