Pay Transparency Laws by State: The 2026 Tracker

A pay transparency law requires an employer to disclose the wage or salary range for a job — sometimes in the posting itself, sometimes on request, sometimes only after an interview. In theory, transparency reduces the gender and racial pay gaps by removing information asymmetries that disadvantage less-experienced negotiators. In practice, it has become one of the fastest-moving areas of state-level employment law: between 2021 and mid-2026, fourteen states plus DC enacted proactive disclosure requirements, three more added reactive-disclosure rules, and at least four more are actively considering bills.

The legal landscape has accelerated dramatically since 2023:

The result for small business owners: there is no federal answer to the question "what does my job posting need to include?" The rules depend entirely on where the position will be performed — and, increasingly, on where the worker reports to a supervisor. A posting that's compliant in Texas may be void in California; a remote role open to applicants in Virginia must meet Virginia's rules even if your company is headquartered in Florida.

This guide gives you the answer for every U.S. state and DC, with the citations to back it up — and flags the 16 city and county ordinances that overlay state law in major metro areas.

We graded every U.S. state and the District of Columbia on a 0–100 Strictness Score. A higher score means more compliance burden on employers — and more transparency for workers. The score combines six weighted factors, each tied to its real-world impact on what an employer has to do.

Colorado scores 89 — the highest in the country — because its Equal Pay for Equal Work Act combines a comprehensive proactive disclosure requirement (range, benefits, application closing date) with the broadest scope (all employers with any Colorado employee) and the strongest enforcement (fines up to $10,000 per violation). Illinois, Maryland, and Washington follow closely; each combines proactive disclosure with strong enforcement and meaningful coverage.

Virginia and Maine appear in the top ten because their 2026 laws are enacted and either in effect (Virginia, since July 1) or imminent (Maine, taking effect July 29). Connecticut's October 1, 2026 transition from reactive to proactive disclosure is also priced in — employers planning fall 2026 hires need to be ready for all three.

Every score in this guide is paired with primary citations — statute, bill number, and effective date — in the state-by-state cards below. If you spot something off, we want to know.

There is no federal pay transparency law applying to private employers in 2026. Federal contractors face limited disclosure obligations under EEOC and OFCCP guidance, and a small number of federal agencies (most notably the SEC, for executive pay) require specific compensation disclosures in their own contexts. Otherwise, the federal layer is empty — the Pay Equity for All Act and similar proposals have been reintroduced in Congress multiple times since 2017 without passing either chamber.

That makes the state-by-state question more important, not less. Employers can't plan around a federal rule that isn't coming, and workers can't rely on one either.

Since 2021, the proactive-disclosure tier has grown from one state (Colorado) to fourteen states plus DC. The headline 2024–2026 changes:

Three states currently require disclosure on request: Connecticut, Rhode Island, and Nevada. Connecticut's transition in October 2026 will leave Rhode Island and Nevada as the only two states using the reactive model — and Rhode Island has had reform proposals introduced annually since 2023. The reactive model appears to be a temporary stopping point on the way to either full proactive disclosure or, in conservative states, no requirement at all.

Thirty-two states have no state-level pay transparency law and show no near-term signs of enacting one — Texas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Ohio among the most economically significant. Most of these states do have local ordinances in specific cities (Cincinnati, Toledo, and Cleveland in Ohio; Philadelphia and Lehigh County in Pennsylvania; Jersey City in New Jersey before the state law took over). Those local rules can catch employers who assume "my state has no requirement" without checking city or county law.

What follows is the per-state breakdown, with cards for every jurisdiction including the federal context.

Below is the full 52-card tracker — one Federal card covering the absence of a national requirement, followed by a card for every U.S. state plus the District of Columbia. Each state card shows the strictness score (0–100), the controlling statute, the employer-size threshold, and a short summary of what the pay transparency law actually requires. Cards carry one of five tags: Federal (national context), Proactive disclosure (fourteen states with posting requirements), Reactive disclosure (three states requiring disclosure on request), Salary history ban only (two states restricting salary history inquiries but not requiring disclosure), or No requirement (thirty-two states with no state pay transparency law).

If you want the shortcut before scrolling: among pay transparency states, the fourteen requiring proactive disclosure in postings are Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Washington, Virginia, DC, Minnesota, Maine, California, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Hawaii, and Vermont. Rhode Island and Nevada require disclosure on request or after interview; Connecticut joins the proactive tier on October 1, 2026. Everywhere else, no state-level requirement exists — but check the city and county ordinances section below, because Cincinnati, Cleveland, Toledo, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and several other cities impose their own local rules that catch employers who assume their state's silence means no obligation.

The cards above are the per-state reference. The next section steps back and looks at the patterns — why the proactive-disclosure model is spreading fast, why reactive disclosure is a shrinking middle ground, and what the persistent no-requirement states have in common.

Five years ago, pay transparency was a Colorado experiment. Today it's a fourteen-state (plus DC) reality with three distinct clusters and one thin residual category. Understanding which cluster your state belongs to matters more than memorizing any single state's specific dollar thresholds — because state pay transparency laws are evolving fast, and the cluster patterns are more predictive of where reform is heading than any individual statute is.

This is the dominant model in 2026. Colorado, Washington, California, and New York established it between 2021 and 2023; Hawaii, DC, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Vermont, Maine, and Virginia followed through 2025 and 2026. The states with pay transparency laws in this cluster share three design elements: wage or salary range must appear in the job posting itself (not disclosed on request, not shared post-interview); coverage typically extends to remote roles that could be filled by workers in the state; and enforcement ranges from agency-only fines to statutory penalties plus a private right of action.

The variation is in scope. At one end, Colorado, Maryland, DC, and Virginia cover all employers with any in-state activity — no size exception. In the middle, Illinois and California use a 15-employee threshold; Minnesota, Vermont, and Maine cluster around 10–30 employees. At the strictest-scope end, New York's 4-employee threshold pulls in almost every workplace in the state. Hawaii is the outlier with a 50-employee floor.

The most consequential design choice in this cluster is remote-worker coverage. Illinois and New York have the most aggressive remote rules: an employer never physically located in Illinois can still be covered if a worker reports to an Illinois supervisor. California uses "may be performed in California" as the trigger. These provisions convert state pay transparency laws into de facto national compliance obligations for many multi-state employers — a small Massachusetts consulting firm that hires one remote California engineer must comply with California's disclosure rules for that role, even if it never posts a Massachusetts job again.

The middle-ground category is shrinking fast. Three states currently require employers to disclose wage range only when the applicant asks — or, in Nevada's case, automatically after an interview. Connecticut led the reactive model in 2021 with Public Act 21-30, but the state's HB 5003 (2026) transitions Connecticut to full proactive disclosure on October 1, 2026 — meaning by late 2026 only Rhode Island and Nevada will remain in the reactive tier.

The reactive model appears to be a temporary stopping point. Every state that's adopted it has since either moved to proactive disclosure (Maryland in 2024, Colorado in its 2021 initial phase, Connecticut in 2026) or is under legislative pressure to do so — Rhode Island has had reform bills introduced annually since 2023. Nevada's post-interview automatic disclosure model is a slight variation on reactive: less burden on applicants than request-based, but still doesn't require any posting.

Two states remain in a purely defensive posture on wage transparency laws: Delaware (19 Del. Code § 709B) and Oregon (ORS 659A.357). Both restrict salary history inquiries during hiring but do not require any pay range disclosure — proactive or reactive. This is where several other states used to sit before enacting proactive disclosure laws: Colorado before 2021, Maryland before 2020, Maine until its July 2026 transition. Delaware and Oregon are outliers today, likely because their legislatures have prioritized other equal-pay reforms rather than transparency itself.

Expect Delaware and Oregon to face renewed pressure through 2027 sessions to add proactive disclosure alongside their existing salary history bans. The trajectory of every reactive-disclosure state converting suggests the salary-history-ban-only category is genuinely transitional, not a stable resting point.

Thirty-two states have no state pay transparency law and no reform bills with meaningful traction. This is a stable, politically consistent group: Texas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Ohio, and other states where employer-side employment lobbying is well-organized. Most have never enacted salary history bans either, and reform proposals — where introduced — have not advanced past committee.

The trap for employers based in these states isn't state law. It's local ordinances. Cleveland (Ohio, effective October 27, 2025), Cincinnati, Toledo, Philadelphia (Pennsylvania), Pittsburgh, Jersey City, and several other cities have their own pay transparency or salary history rules. A Columbus-based employer assuming Ohio has no requirement may still be subject to Cleveland's ordinance if hiring for a Cleveland-based role. That local layer is where a lot of quiet non-compliance happens — and it's what the next section covers.

Even in states without a pay transparency law, sixteen cities and counties have their own ordinances that catch employers off guard. Some cover private employers broadly; others apply only to city government workers or city contractors. If your workforce touches any of these jurisdictions — you have employees there, you post jobs there, or you contract with the city government — the state map doesn't tell the whole story.

New York's state law (§ 194-b) already applies to employers with 4+ employees, but four New York local ordinances add city-specific requirements. New York City's Local Law 32 requires pay range in every job posting for positions performed at least in part in NYC. Westchester County (Local Law 20/2022) and Ithaca (Local Law No. 5 of 2022) mirror the NYC approach. Albany County added Local Law E, effective February 2023. For NYC-based employers, the city and state rules mostly align — the local ordinances mattered most before the state law took effect in September 2023.

Pennsylvania has no statewide pay transparency law (SB 889 is pending in the 2025 session), but four local ordinances apply. Philadelphia (Ord. 220903) requires salary range in job postings for Philadelphia-based positions. Lehigh County (Ord. 2024-106) bans salary history inquiries for employers in the county. Pittsburgh and Allegheny County (Ord. No. 23-21-OR) both restrict salary history questions. Employers posting Pennsylvania jobs should check each city and county rule separately — the ordinances vary in scope, coverage, and enforcement.

Ohio has no state law but three cities with meaningful ordinances. Cincinnati (Ord. 83-2019) and Toledo (Pay Equity Act of 2020) both prohibit salary history inquiries for employers with 15+ employees in the city. Cleveland (Ord. 104-2025) is the most recent and most aggressive — effective October 27, 2025, it requires pay range disclosure plus a salary history ban for employers with 15+ employees in Cleveland. Employers posting Cleveland jobs must now comply with rules more stringent than any state-level Ohio requirement.

Jersey City (Ord. 22-060) had its own salary history ban, largely superseded by New Jersey's 2025 state law but still an independent enforcement basis. Richland County and the City of Columbia, South Carolina, apply salary-history-ban rules to county and city employees and contractors. Jackson, Mississippi, has a city-executive-order-based salary history ban for city workers only. Salt Lake City, Utah, restricts city-employee salary history inquiries (effective March 1, 2018). Detroit, Michigan, requires pay range disclosure — but only from city contractors, a narrow but important carve-out given Michigan's state-level preemption of broader local rules.

If your workforce touches any of these jurisdictions, assume the local ordinance applies until you've confirmed otherwise. City ordinances are enforced separately from state law; a compliance sweep that only checks state statutes will miss them. Where state and local rules both apply, the stricter rule generally governs — meaning employers in Cleveland must comply with both Cleveland's ordinance and any applicable federal contractor rules, even though Ohio has no state pay transparency law.

The most common question from small business owners with remote workers isn't "does my state have a pay transparency law?" It's "I'm posting a remote job open to workers in five states — whose rules apply?" The answer depends on three factors, in order of importance.

For most state pay transparency laws, the trigger is where the worker performs the job. A remote position that could be filled by a California resident triggers California's Cal. Lab. Code § 432.3, regardless of where the employer is headquartered. Same for New York (§ 194-b), Colorado (§ 8-5-101), Washington (RCW 49.58.110), and most other proactive-disclosure states. Practical implication: if you post a "remote, US-based" role and a Colorado resident applies, your posting had to include the Colorado-required range — even if you never intended to hire a Coloradan.

Illinois and New York take the coverage rule a step further. Illinois (820 ILCS 112/10) covers not just positions performed in Illinois but also positions that report to an Illinois-based supervisor. A fully remote worker who never physically works in Illinois can still be covered if their manager is in Chicago. New York applies a similar rule via NY DOL guidance. These reporting-supervisor rules mean multi-state employers headquartered in Illinois or New York face pay transparency obligations for their entire remote workforce, regardless of where those workers actually live.

For multi-state postings, the safe compliance move is to include the range disclosure required by the strictest state where the job could be filled. If a remote role is open to anyone in the U.S., that typically means posting the Colorado-required range — compensation plus benefits plus application closing date — which will also satisfy every other state's proactive disclosure law. It's more work than the minimum required in Texas, but it eliminates the state-by-state compliance analysis that catches employers who assume one job posting works everywhere.

Multi-state employers with remote workers should map their workforce by the employee's actual state of residence, not by headquarters location. A worker who relocated during the pandemic without telling HR may be governed by a state's pay transparency law that the employer's template doesn't address. Job postings should specify geographic scope explicitly ("this role is open to residents of these five states") rather than leaving it ambiguous. And where the employer has any concentration of workers in Illinois or New York, the reporting-supervisor rule becomes a company-wide compliance issue, not a per-posting one.

If you're a small business owner hiring in a pay transparency state, the good news is that compliance is mechanical once you know what to include. Six elements distinguish a 2026-compliant posting from one that will get flagged.

The most common mistake is posting an implausibly wide range (say, "$60,000–$300,000") to appear compliant while preserving negotiation flexibility. Most state statutes require a "good-faith" range — one the employer reasonably expects to pay for the role. Washington's private right of action has produced class-action litigation on this point since 2024; overly wide ranges have been treated as effectively no disclosure at all. A defensible range typically spans 20–40% top-to-bottom for individual contributor roles, wider for senior positions with performance-based components.

Colorado, Washington, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, DC, and Vermont all require a description of benefits alongside the pay range. "Standard health, dental, and 401(k)" is not enough — the description should cover major benefit categories including insurance, retirement, paid time off, and any equity or bonus programs. California, New York, Hawaii, and Massachusetts don't require benefits disclosure in postings, though it's often good practice to include for consistency across a multi-state hiring template.

Colorado explicitly requires the application window closing date in every posting. No other state currently mandates it, but including a closing date is best practice: it prevents open-ended postings that stay live for months after the role is filled, and it aligns with Colorado's model for multi-state employers standardizing their template.

Colorado and New Jersey require notice of "job opportunities" — including internal promotions and transfers — to be posted for current employees before or simultaneously with external posting. Missing this trip-wire voids the compliance benefit of the external posting. Small employers should build a two-track process: internal posting first (or simultaneously), then external posting to job boards. Massachusetts requires pay-range disclosure specifically for internal transfers and promotions, on request from the employee.

Specify where the job can be performed — remote-only, hybrid, in-person, or state-restricted. This matters both for state pay transparency compliance and for reducing the coverage of remote-worker rules like Illinois's reporting-supervisor test. "Fully remote, US-based" postings pull in every state's rules by default; "Hybrid, based in Denver, CO" narrows the exposure to Colorado. Some employers explicitly list the states where they will hire ("open to residents of CA, NY, IL, and TX") to bound their compliance surface.

The other side of the pay transparency coin: in 22+ states and many cities, employers cannot ask about prior salary during hiring. This applies to application forms, interviews, and any pre-hire conversation. If your applicant tracking system asks for salary history in a required field, it may violate multiple states' laws simultaneously. Voluntary disclosure by the applicant is generally permitted, but employers should not solicit it.

A document review tool like Loio can flag missing pay range disclosures, overly wide ranges, and salary history compliance issues in your posting template before it goes live — and surface the state-by-state variation that determines whether "compliant in Texas" also means "compliant in California."