With increased attention on the importance of pay equity in the workplace, legislatures are enacting new laws to address pay disparities by increasing transparency as well as prohibiting employers from requesting pay history information from job applicants.  These laws have now been enacted in 14 states (California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Washington and Vermont) and at least 8 local jurisdictions, including the City of Cleveland, where a new pay transparency ordinance takes effect on October 27, 2025.  The growing number and variety of pay equity laws presents new challenges for employers, who must navigate the different legal requirements in each individual jurisdiction, often including jurisdictions in which they are simply recruiting for work that will take place elsewhere or where they only have remote employees.

In this legislative update, we will discuss the following topics:

• What is pay transparency?
• Why does it matter?
• Which states or local governments have enacted pay transparency laws?
• Which states or local governments have enacted bans on pay history inquiries?
• What are the risks and benefits of being proactive about pay transparency and history practices even when not required by law?
• How do pay transparency and history laws apply to employers recruiting in jurisdictions where they don’t actually have any employees or with remote employees in different jurisdictions?
• Can employers lawfully conduct a pay audit, in light of the increased scrutiny on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DE&I) initiatives?
• What are some best practices regarding pay transparency and pay history disclosure during the hiring process?

Reductions in force (RIFs) remain a necessary, though difficult, workforce strategy. In response to evolving market demands and operational shifts, employers considering a RIF must navigate a range of legal, logistical, and personnel concerns. With sound planning and compliance, employers can transition effectively while minimizing exposure and maintaining employee trust.

The process begins by clearly documenting the legitimate business reasons for the reduction, whether financial, structural, or operational. Also, the selection criteria should be objective and tied to the organization’s goals. Subjective or informal criteria, like “manager’s choice,” can raise claims of discrimination, especially when correlated with protected characteristics.