Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Amends the Fair Labor Standards Act to require employers to disclose the wage or wage range for any employment opportunity in public/internal postings, to applicants before compensation discussions and on request, and to employees upon hire and annually or on request. Defines “wage range” broadly and prohibits retaliation.
Equity and transparency benefits versus regulatory burden and litigation risks
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward substantive amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act that clearly articulates new employer duties (wage-range disclosure), a definitional standard for 'wage range,' and legal remedies (civil penalties, statutory damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees), but it leaves substantial implementation and administrative detail unspecified.
Amends the Fair Labor Standards Act to require employers to disclose the wage or wage range for any employment opportunity in public/internal postings, to applicants before compensation discussions and on request, and to employees upon hire and annually or on request.
Defines “wage range” broadly and prohibits retaliation.
Establishes civil penalties for violations, statutory or actual damages for affected individuals, attorney fees, injunctive relief, and allows representative actions.
Clear, limited-scope policy with significant employer pushback and private-rights litigation makes enactment uncertain absent compromise.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward substantive amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act that clearly articulates new employer duties (wage-range disclosure), a definitional standard for 'wage range,' and legal remedies (civil penalties, statutory damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees), but it leaves substantial implementation and administrative detail unspecified.
Equity and transparency benefits versus regulatory burden and litigation risks
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Equity and transparency benefits versus regulatory burden and litigation risks
Likely strongly supportive; sees the bill as a concrete tool to reduce pay opacity and wage gaps.
Supports enforcement and damages as necessary deterrents.
Might worry employers could game ranges, but views benefits as outweighing risks.
Generally supportive of transparency goals but cautious about implementation details.
Concerned about compliance burden, litigation volume, and unintended employer responses.
Would favor clarifying definitions, phasing for small businesses, and regulatory guidance to reduce disputes.
Likely opposed; views the bill as federal overreach that imposes compliance costs and litigation risks.
Concerned disclosure mandates will reduce managerial flexibility and incentivize costly lawsuits.
Might accept limited, narrowly tailored transparency reforms but opposes current penalties and class-action exposure.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Clear, limited-scope policy with significant employer pushback and private-rights litigation makes enactment uncertain absent compromise.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Equity and transparency benefits versus regulatory burden and litigation risks
Clear, limited-scope policy with significant employer pushback and private-rights litigation makes enactment uncertain absent compromise.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward substantive amendment to the Fair Labor Standards Act that clearly articulates new employer duties (wage-range disclosure), a definitional standa…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.