With NYC's Pay Transparency Law, a Sea Change Leaves Employers With Little Choice but To Update Pay Practices
New York City's law, which goes into effect on May 15, 2022, amends the city's Human Rights Law to include a new discriminatory practice: failing to include salary ranges in job postings.
February 25, 2022 at 02:30 PM
8 minute read
Employment LawNew York City recently passed a law requiring that job postings state a minimum and maximum starting salary for any advertised job, promotion, or transfer opportunity. Wage transparency laws like New York City's deepen the connection between several aspects of workforce management best practices. While the law simply requires job postings to include salary ranges, this requirement raises the stakes on pay equity, so much so, that it behooves employers to maintain defensible pay structures, employ sound performance management practices, have up-to-date job descriptions, and maintain all other necessary documentation to support their compensation decisions.
New York City's law, which goes into effect on May 15, 2022, amends the city's Human Rights Law to include a new discriminatory practice: failing to include salary ranges in job postings. The law requires job postings to include a salary range "from the lowest to the highest salary the employer in good faith believes at the time of the posting it would pay for the advertised job, promotion, or transfer opportunity." NYC Admin. Code §8-107 (32). The law does not define "salary," so absent further regulatory clarification, all positions, regardless if paid as salary or on an hourly or other basis, are presumed subject to the law. New York City's law applies to "employer agents and employment agencies," unlike Colorado's law, discussed below, which is strictly limited to the hiring employer.
A Growing Trend. New York City's law follows from Colorado's robust pay transparency law, which requires employers to disclose salary range as well as benefit information in job postings, and obligates employers to post internal openings (including the mandated disclosures) before filling the role. Colorado has taken the position that its law applies to nationwide remote job postings by Colorado employers, and Colorado employers who post national remote positions excluding Colorado applicants violate the law.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDecision of the Day: School District's Probe Was a 'Sham'; Title IX Administrator Showed Sex-Based Bias
How Businesses Can Protect Themselves Given the Influx Nature of Non-Competes
6 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Read the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome', DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
- 2Voir Dire Voyeur: I Find Out What Kind of Juror I’d Be
- 3When It Comes to Local Law 97 Compliance, You’ve Gotta Have (Good) Faith
- 4Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Virginia Griffith, Director of Business Development at OutsideGC
- 5Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Bill Tanenbaum, Partner & Chair, AI & Data Law Practice Group at Moses Singer
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250