Five of the six states we track require pay disclosure — and no two of them require the same thing. One wants an application deadline in every posting. One lets "testers" sue over a bad posting. One covers you the moment you have a single employee there. Here's the 2026 picture, verified against the statutes and agencies themselves.
The TL;DR
- Five different laws, five different rulebooks. California, Colorado, Illinois, New York, and Washington all require pay ranges in job postings — but thresholds (1, 4, or 15 employees), required contents, penalties, and who can sue vary wildly.
- Remote jobs are where employers get caught. If a job can be done from home, a state like Colorado treats it as a Colorado job — because someone living in Colorado could hold it. That means Colorado's posting rules can apply to your listing even if your company has no office there. And the popular workaround — adding "Colorado applicants will not be considered" to the posting — doesn't switch the law off; the state closed that loophole. Details in the remote-posting section below.
- Texas requires nothing — and its cities can't either. The "Death Star" preemption law (upheld on appeal in July 2025) structurally blocks Texas municipalities from creating their own rules.
- Washington is the litigation hotspot. The state supreme court held in September 2025 that anyone who applies to a non-compliant posting can seek statutory damages — genuine interest in the job not required.
- A lot of what's circulating is out of date or wrong. This research surfaced more than a dozen widely-repeated errors, from a doubled Colorado penalty figure to Texas bills that don't say what they're claimed to. The double-check list is at the bottom.
The comparison table
| CA | CO | IL | NY | WA | TX | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Posting disclosure | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
| Threshold | 15+ | 1+ CO employee | 15+ | 4+ | 15+ (≥1 in WA) | — |
| Pay range in posting | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes (or fixed amount) | — |
| Benefits described in posting | No | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | — |
| Application deadline in posting | No | Yes | No | No | No | — |
| Internal promotion notice | No | Yes + post-selection notice | Yes (14 days) | No | Limited | — |
| Pay-data reporting to agency | Yes (100+) | No | Separate regime | No | No | — |
| Private lawsuits over postings | Yes | No | No | No | Yes — broadly | — |
| Max posting penalty | $10,000 | $10,000 | $10,000 | $3,000 (state) | $5,000 + fees | — |
Reading the table: Threshold is the employee count that puts an employer under the law — Colorado's kicks in at the first Colorado employee. Pay-data reporting is a separate obligation: an annual report of pay statistics by demographic filed with a state agency; among these states only California requires it, and only for employers with 100+ U.S. employees. Max posting penalty is the statutory maximum in dollars per violation; several states layer on cure periods and repeat-offense escalators, covered per state below.
State by state: where compliance actually lives
California: two thresholds, and most people mix them up
California's Labor Code § 432.3 (built by SB 1162, refined by SB 642 effective January 1, 2026) has a split structure that trips up even careful summaries:
- Postings (15+ employees): must include the pay range — since January 1, 2026, defined as "a good faith estimate of the salary or hourly wage range that the employer reasonably expects to pay for the position upon hire." Benefits and bonuses are not required in the posting. A link or QR code doesn't satisfy it — the range goes in the posting itself.
- On request (every employer, no threshold): applicants get the pay scale on reasonable request, and any current employee can request the scale for their own position. This applies to a 3-person company.
The Labor Commissioner's FAQ interprets the posting rule to cover any position that "may ever be filled in California, either in-person or remotely" — an agency reading, not statutory text, but the one that gets enforced. Penalties run $100–$10,000 per violation with a first-violation safe harbor if all open postings get fixed, and — unusual among these states — workers can sue directly for injunctive relief.
Separately, employers with 100+ U.S. employees (and at least one in California) file pay-data reports with the Civil Rights Department each May — a demographic breakdown of who gets paid what, by job category, race/ethnicity, and sex. The 2025-year report was due May 13, 2026, and under SB 464 the penalties for not filing are now mandatory rather than up to the court. Heads-up for 2027: the job categories in the report switch from the federal EEO-1 framework to 23 occupation groups (the SOC system) starting with the report filed in May 2027.
Sources: Labor Code § 432.3 · SB 642 · SB 464 · DIR Equal Pay FAQ · CRD pay data reporting
Colorado: the most demanding law, triggered by one employee
Colorado's Equal Pay for Equal Work Act applies to any employer with a single Colorado employee — no headcount minimum — and asks for more than any other state:
- Every job-opportunity posting needs the compensation (or a genuinely expected range), a general description of bonuses and benefits, and the date the application window is anticipated to close — the deadline requirement is unique to Colorado.
- After you hire, you owe a post-selection notice within 30 days to the employees who'll regularly work with the new hire: their name, prior title if internal, new title, and how others can express interest in similar roles.
- Promotions must generally be posted as job opportunities before they happen — unless they qualify as a "career progression" based on objective, predefined criteria. Any managerial discretion in the promotion takes it out of the exception.
And the rule that catches out-of-state employers: the law covers any remote job that could be performed from Colorado. When the posting rules first took effect, some employers tried to sidestep them by adding a line like "Colorado applicants will not be considered" to remote listings — reasoning that if no Coloradan could get the job, Colorado's law shouldn't apply. The state's enforcement agency rejected that reading in its published guidance (CDLE INFO #9A): what matters is whether the work could be done from Colorado, not who the employer says it will hire. Penalties run $500–$10,000 per violation, enforced by the state (no private lawsuits over postings).
Sources: SB 23-105 · C.R.S. 8-5-201/203 · CDLE Posting, Screening, and Transparency (POST) Rules (7 CCR 1103-18) and INFO #9A (May 2024)
Illinois: the most intricate penalty math
Illinois' Equal Pay Act amendments (effective January 1, 2025) cover employers with 15+ employees, and require both the pay scale and a description of benefits in any specific job posting — with a practical safe harbor: a hyperlink to a public page with the position's pay and benefits satisfies the duty, and a general benefits page can cover the benefits half.
Three details worth knowing cold:
- Nothing requires you to post jobs at all. The statute says so explicitly. But if you don't post, you must disclose pay scale and benefits to applicants before any offer or compensation discussion.
- The promotion rule runs from external postings: all current employees must be told about a promotion opportunity within 14 calendar days after you post the position externally.
- Penalties depend on whether the posting is active or inactive — active postings get cure periods (14 days on a first violation, $500 max; 7 days on a second, $2,500; none on a third, $10,000), while inactive postings get no cure at any tier (starting at $250). After a third offense, penalties are automatic for five years.
The complaint window is one year, enforced by IDOL — which, as of January 1, 2026, can act on anonymous complaints under a new agency policy.
Sources: 820 ILCS 112 § 10(b-25) · IDOL pay transparency FAQ
New York: a modest state law wearing a $250,000 city hat
New York's state law (Labor Law § 194-b, effective September 2023) is comparatively light: employers with 4+ employees include a good-faith minimum and maximum in postings for jobs performed at least partly in New York or reporting to a New York supervisor or worksite. A job description is required only "if such description exists." Penalties top out at $3,000 through the standard Labor Law enforcement route, with no private right of action. The statute itself hasn't been amended since it took effect; the state DOL has refined its FAQ guidance over time, but the legal requirements are unchanged since 2023.
The teeth are in New York City. The city's own ordinance (Local Law 32, covering employers with four or more employees) runs through the City Human Rights Law, and failing to include the required salary range in a covered posting carries real exposure: an uncured posting violation can reach $250,000, while a first complaint fixed within 30 days of the Commission's notice costs nothing.
One structural point worth understanding: whether a state law overrides city and county rules on the same subject — lawyers call this "preemption" — is a choice each legislature makes, law by law. Texas chose broad preemption (more on that below); New York wrote the opposite into this statute, an express clause saying local laws survive alongside it. The practical consequence: New York employers comply with both layers wherever they overlap, which is why the 2022-era local ordinances — Westchester County, Ithaca, and Albany County's Local Law E (passed October 2022, effective early 2023) — remain in force alongside the state law.
Sources: Labor Law § 194-b · NY DOL pay transparency · NYC salary transparency (Council)
Washington: where a bad posting is a lawsuit
Washington's rules (RCW 49.58.110, in force since January 2023) cover employers with 15+ employees, counting the whole workforce as long as one is Washington-based. Postings need the wage scale or range plus general descriptions of benefits and other compensation; a July 2025 amendment (SB 5408) added a fixed-amount option when a single wage is genuinely offered.
What makes Washington different is enforcement. In September 2025, the state supreme court held in Branson v. Washington Fine Wine & Spirits that any person who applies to a non-compliant posting may seek statutory damages — whether or not they actually wanted the job. That blessed the "tester" model behind hundreds of class actions. The 2025 amendments offset it partially. Damages now run on a $100–$5,000 sliding scale (replacing the old flat $5,000), and employers get a cure period — a chance to fix the problem before damages attach: after receiving written notice of a non-compliant posting, an employer has 5 business days to correct it, and a corrected posting can't be sued over. That protection is temporary, though — it expires July 27, 2027.
Sources: RCW 49.58.110 · SB 5408 · L&I Equal Pay guidance (ES.E.1, rev. Feb 2026)
Texas: nothing required — and nothing coming
Texas has no pay-transparency mandate of any kind: no posting requirement, no on-request duty, no pay-data reporting, and no standalone equal-pay statute (sex-based compensation discrimination runs through the general anti-discrimination law, Labor Code Chapter 21). No transparency bill advanced in the 2025 legislative session, and the legislature doesn't meet again in regular session until 2027.
The structural point that most "Texas has no law" summaries miss: even Texas cities can't fill the gap. The 2023 preemption statute known as the "Death Star" law (HB 2127, Labor Code § 1.005) bars municipalities from regulating in fields occupied by the state labor code, expressly including hiring practices — and after a court battle, it was upheld on appeal in July 2025 and is currently in effect.
Sources: Texas Labor Code Ch. 21 · HB 2127 enrolled text
The remote-posting problem, in one paragraph
Post one remote-eligible job from anywhere, and here's what can attach simultaneously: Colorado's rules if the role could be performed from Colorado (and you employ even one person there), Washington's if it's performable by a Washington-based employee (and you have 15+ employees with one in-state), California's if the position "may ever be filled in California" (per the Labor Commissioner's interpretation), and New York's and Illinois' if the role reports into those states. The practical ceiling wins: a posting that includes a good-faith range, a general benefits description, and an application deadline satisfies the strictest overlapping requirements — which is why many multi-state employers simply comply with Colorado everywhere.
Before you rely on it: seven claims worth double-checking
Pay transparency is one of the most misreported corners of employment law — the same handful of errors resurfaces across summaries and roundups, and acting on them can mean over- or under-complying. These were the most common claims encountered researching this guide; in each case, the statute says otherwise:
- "Colorado fines go up to $20,000." The statute sets $500–$10,000 (C.R.S. 8-5-203).
- "Washington's posting rules are new in 2026." The mandate has been in force since January 2023; the 2025 amendments changed remedies, not the requirement.
- "Illinois gives you 90 days to complain." The statute allows one year.
- "California postings must include benefits." Not required in California — that's Colorado, Washington, and Illinois.
- "California's on-request rules only cover 15+ employers." The on-request duties cover every employer; only the posting rule has the threshold.
- "New York tightened its law in 2026." The statute hasn't been amended since 2023 — agency guidance evolved, the law didn't.
- "Texas HB 290 / HB 2196 are pay-transparency bills." They're a military tuition-assistance bill and a school-funding bill; the mix-up traces to an unrelated 2017 bill that shared a number.
FAQ
Which states require pay ranges in job postings in 2026? Of the states we track: California, Colorado, Illinois, New York, and Washington (plus NYC's separate ordinance). Nationally the list is longer and growing — these six are our coverage set.
Do I have to include a salary range in a remote job posting? Very likely yes, if you have any employees in a posting-law state. Colorado's rules apply to any role performable from Colorado even if the posting excludes Colorado applicants; Washington and California use similarly broad tests.
Does Texas have a pay transparency law? No — and its cities are preempted from creating one by the 2023 "Death Star" law, upheld on appeal in July 2025.
What's the biggest penalty risk? Two different shapes: NYC's $250,000 ceiling for uncured violations, and Washington's private-lawsuit exposure, where the state supreme court has allowed claims from applicants who never wanted the job.
Do these states require telling current employees about promotions? Colorado (post before promoting, unless objective "career progression" criteria apply, plus a post-selection notice) and Illinois (notify all employees within 14 calendar days of an external posting). California and New York have no such requirement.
Verified against primary sources — state statutes, legislature sites, and agency guidance (CA DIR & CRD, CDLE, IDOL, NY DOL, WA L&I) — on July 13–14, 2026, including direct capture of CDLE INFO #9A, the NYC CCHR factsheet, Ithaca Ordinance 2022-03, and Albany County's Legistar record. Where a rule rests on agency interpretation rather than statutory text, we've said so. State Law Briefing publishes legal information, not legal advice; consult a licensed employment attorney for guidance specific to your organization.