HB 2377
In CommitteeHouse
Pay transparency/applicants
Making technical clarifications by defining "applicant" to support fair and consistent pay transparency enforcement.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill clarifies Washington’s pay transparency law by defining who counts as an 'applicant' to prevent lawsuits from people who apply without genuine intent to work, while giving employers a short-term chance to fix posting errors before penalties apply. It keeps requirements for employers to share wage ranges and benefits in job postings and for providing wage info on internal promotions.
- Defines 'applicant' as someone who applies with a 'genuine intent to be considered for employment' to prevent lawsuits from people who apply solely to find violations.
- Requires employers with 15+ employees to disclose wage scale or fixed wage amount and a general description of benefits in all job postings (including third-party sites).
- Requires employers to provide wage scale or fixed wage for internal transfers or promotions upon request.
- Gives employers a 5-day 'right to cure' window (through July 27, 2027) to fix posting errors after receiving written notice—before facing penalties or lawsuits.
- Sets statutory damages of $100–$5,000 per violation for administrative or civil enforcement, with higher amounts for willful or repeat violations.
- Bars double recovery—employees can pursue either administrative complaints or civil lawsuits, but not both for the same violation.
Who is affected
- Employers with 15 or more employees — Employers with 15 or more employees must now disclose wage scales or fixed wages and benefits in job postings and provide wage ranges for internal transfers or promotions upon request. They gain a 5-day correction window for first-time violations before facing penalties, but only through July 2027.
- Job applicants — Job applicants gain clearer access to wage information upfront and can file complaints or lawsuits if employers fail to comply—but only if they applied with genuine intent to be hired. The bill aims to prevent lawsuits from people who apply solely to find legal violations.
- Current employees — Current employees who are offered internal transfers or promotions have the right to receive the wage scale or fixed wage for the new position, helping them evaluate offers fairly.
- Washington State Department of Labor & Industries — The Washington State Department of Labor & Industries gains authority to investigate complaints, issue citations, and impose civil penalties (up to $1,000 for repeat violations) and statutory damages ($100–$5,000 per violation).
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Mandating wage scale or fixed wage and benefit descriptions in all job postings—including third-party sites—empowers job seekers to compare offers and negotiate more fairly, reducing wage suppression and helping workers avoid accepting underpaid positions.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(a)(i)-(ii)Requiring employers to disclose wage scale for internal promotions upon request helps current employees evaluate offers fairly and prevents employers from offering lower wages to internal candidates than external ones—reinforcing pay equity and reducing internal wage disparities.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)The 5-day cure window for first-time posting errors—available only through July 2027—reduces the risk of immediate penalties for good-faith errors, encouraging employers to self-correct rather than face litigation over minor or technical violations.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(b)The statutory damages framework (with mitigating factors like willfulness, employer size, and deterrence) provides a structured, fair enforcement mechanism that deters violations while allowing proportionality—more transparent than pure punitive damages without guidelines.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 2(5)(a), Sec. 2(6)(a)Defining 'applicant' as someone with 'genuine intent to be considered for employment' aims to curb opportunistic lawsuits—potentially reducing frivolous litigation that could overwhelm employers and deter hiring, though the standard’s subjectivity remains a concern.
Rights & LibertiesLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(3)
Potential Concerns (5)
The 5-day 'right to cure' window (through July 27, 2027) for posting errors reduces legal exposure for employers, but only applies temporarily and does not eliminate liability for willful or repeat violations—providing modest procedural relief but not substantive protection from enforcement.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 2(1)(b)Defining 'applicant' as someone with 'genuine intent to be considered for employment' creates a subjective standard that may be difficult to enforce consistently and could discourage legitimate job seekers from pursuing complaints if their application appears imperfect or non-traditional.
Rights & LibertiesRef: Sec. 2(3)Statutory damages of $100–$5,000 per violation—especially when multiplied across multiple postings or employees—pose a significant financial risk to small and mid-sized employers, particularly those with limited compliance resources, and may discourage hiring or lead to overly cautious, rigid hiring practices.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(5)(c), Sec. 2(6)(a)The prohibition on double recovery (employees can pursue either administrative or civil remedies, but not both) reduces employers’ exposure, but the requirement to pay statutory damages—without requiring proof of actual harm—shifts legal risk onto employers and may incentivize strategic filing by plaintiffs’ attorneys despite the bar on cumulative recovery.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(5)(a), Sec. 2(6)(a)The bill requires increased staffing and resources for the Department of Labor & Industries to handle complaints and enforcement, but does not appropriate new funding—potentially diverting resources from other enforcement priorities and straining state capacity.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Fiscal Impact section
Who Is Most Affected
Small and mid-sized employers (15–100 employees) face the highest relative compliance burden—especially those using third-party job boards—due to limited legal resources and exposure to per-violation penalties. While the cure window offers temporary relief, it expires in 2027, and the $100–$5,000 statutory damages range may incentivize settlement over litigation even for minor errors.
Low- and middle-income job seekers benefit significantly from upfront wage transparency, enabling better comparisons and reducing wage suppression. However, the 'genuine intent' standard may inadvertently deter applicants who don’t fit traditional hiring profiles (e.g., career changers, people with disabilities) from filing complaints if their application appears less formal.
Current employees gain leverage in internal mobility decisions by receiving wage transparency for promotions—helping prevent internal pay inequity. However, they cannot pursue civil claims unless they are also 'applicants' under the new definition, limiting their enforcement options to administrative complaints or civil suits only for promotion-related violations.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys may see reduced volume due to the cure window and 'genuine intent' bar, but the statutory damages framework ($100–$5,000) and attorney’s fees provision still support class-action viability. The prohibition on double recovery slightly reduces potential recovery per case, but the clarity of the law may increase compliance-driven settlements.
The Department of Labor & Industries gains new enforcement responsibilities but no new funding—potentially straining existing resources. However, civil penalties ($500–$1,000) and statutory damages ($100–$5,000) deposited into the Supplemental Pension Fund may partially offset costs and support long-term pension stability.