Salary Transparency Act

Bill Number

H.R. 2007

Origin Chamber

House

Congress

119th Congress, Session 1

Policy Area

Labor and Employment

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2025-03-10: Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.

Last Updated

2026-03-06T20:42:00Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose

The Salary Transparency Act (H.R. 2007) aims to promote fairness in hiring and employment by requiring employers to disclose expected wage ranges for job opportunities. This helps employees and job applicants make informed decisions about compensation without relying on guesswork or negotiations in the dark.

Key Provisions

• Wage Disclosure in Job Postings: Employers must include the wage or wage range (a good-faith estimate of anticipated pay, which could reference pay scales, budgeted amounts, or wages for similar roles) in all public or internal job postings.
• Disclosure to Applicants Without Postings: If no job posting is provided, employers must share the wage range with applicants before discussing pay and anytime upon request.
• Disclosure to Current Employees: Employers must inform employees of the wage range for their position upon hiring, at least once a year, and upon request.
• Anti-Retaliation Protections: Employers cannot punish (e.g., by denying interviews, hires, promotions, or through other retaliation) employees or applicants for requesting or using this information.
• Penalties for Violations:
• Civil fines start at $5,000 for the first offense, increasing by $1,000 per repeat violation, up to a $10,000 maximum.
• Affected individuals can sue for statutory damages ($1,000 to $10,000), actual damages (real financial losses), reasonable attorney fees, and court orders to stop violations.
• Lawsuits can be filed individually or as class actions (group suits for similarly affected people) in federal or state courts.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

This bill amends the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), a key federal law on minimum wage, overtime, and worker protections, by adding a new Section 8 on wage disclosures and expanding Section 16 to include penalties for these violations. Previously, the FLSA did not require employers to share pay information during hiring or employment, leaving wage secrecy common in many workplaces. This introduces a nationwide mandate, filling a gap where only some states (like California or New York) had similar rules.

Potential Impacts

• On Government Agencies: The Department of Labor (DOL) would gain enforcement responsibilities, potentially increasing workload and resources needed for investigations and penalties, similar to how it handles other FLSA violations.
• On Citizens (Employees and Applicants): Job seekers and workers could negotiate better pay with clearer information, potentially reducing wage gaps (e.g., based on gender or race) caused by unequal access to pay data. It empowers individuals to sue directly, making enforcement more accessible without relying solely on government action.
• On Employers: Businesses, especially small ones, may face added costs for updating job postings and tracking disclosures, but it could streamline hiring by attracting more qualified candidates. Larger companies might need to adjust HR policies nationwide.
• On International Relations: No direct impact, as this is a domestic labor law focused on U.S. workplaces.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• Employers: All businesses covered by the FLSA (most private and public sector employers with employees), who must comply with disclosure rules and risk fines or lawsuits.
• Employees and Job Applicants: Workers and seekers who gain rights to pay information and protections against retaliation, benefiting from greater transparency.
• Department of Labor (DOL): The federal agency responsible for overseeing FLSA compliance, including investigations and civil penalties.
• Courts and Legal System: Federal and state judges handling lawsuits, including potential class actions, which could increase litigation volume.
• Advocacy Groups: Organizations focused on workers' rights, pay equity, or business interests, who may support or challenge implementation.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal Implications: Expands private enforcement under the FLSA by allowing direct lawsuits with damages and attorney fees, similar to wage theft claims. The "good faith" standard for wage ranges gives employers flexibility but invites disputes over accuracy. It applies broadly to FLSA-covered employers, potentially overriding less strict state laws where conflicts arise.
• Constitutional Implications: Aligns with Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce (under the Commerce Clause), as employment practices affect the economy. No major free speech or privacy concerns, though employers might argue disclosures infringe on business strategies—courts have generally upheld similar transparency rules.
• Political Implications: Positions as pro-worker legislation to address pay inequality, likely appealing to labor advocates but drawing opposition from business groups concerned about compliance burdens. If passed, it could set a precedent for further wage reforms, influencing state-level policies and elections focused on economic fairness.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large]

Cosponsors (2)

Rep. Tlaib, Rashida [D-MI-12], Rep. Ramirez, Delia C. [D-IL-3]

Recent Actions

• 2025-03-10: Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
• 2025-03-10: Introduced in House
• 2025-03-10: Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E198)
• 2025-03-10: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

• Salary Transparency Act — issued 2025-03-10 — PDF (4 pages)