Fact Check: When You Have to Post a Salary Range

DOL state-law trackers confirm no federal posting-disclosure obligation. Effective as of May 2026: CA, CO, CT, DC, HI, IL, MD, MA, MN, NJ, NY, RI, VT, WA. Maine and Virginia are enacted and take effect later in 2026; Delaware follows in 2027.

Each state is verified individually in the parent article's fact-check. The quick read now separates effective laws from enacted future laws so a scanning employer does not mistake Maine or Virginia as already effective on May 27, 2026.

The 7 cities are NYC, Jersey City, Ithaca, Cincinnati, Toledo, Cleveland, Columbus. The "several Ohio cities" framing summarizes Cincinnati, Toledo, Cleveland, Columbus without enumerating in prose (per methodology rule 11 — 3+ jurisdictions belong in a bullet, not a prose list).

California's 2025 SB 642 (effective January 1, 2026) amended Labor Code §432.3 to define "pay scale" as the range the employer "reasonably expects to pay for the position upon hire" — narrower than the prior role-range definition. The article's parent fact-check captures the statute text verbatim; the quick-read renders it in plain English.

California Labor Code §432.3(c)(5) (post-SB-642) extends the disclosure requirement to every third-party platform the employer uses. Similar third-party-extension provisions appear in IL, ME, NJ, NY laws. The employer's exposure follows the posting, not the platform.

Massachusetts Chapter 141 of the Acts of 2024 (effective 10/29/2025), New York Labor Law §194-b, and Virginia HB 2531 (effective 7/1/2026) each explicitly extend the disclosure requirement to internal job openings — promotions, transfers, and similar opportunities.

Washington's RCW 49.58.110 + the 2025 Branson v. Washington Fine Wine & Spirits ruling together establish that the obligation attaches to where the applicant could perform the role, not where the employer is located. California, Colorado, and New York interpret their statutes parallel-fashion.

King County Superior Court filings since June 2024 documented in the article's fact-check; defendants include Adidas, Insight Global, Albertsons, and dozens of others. The $100–$5,000 statutory damages range is the 2025 EPOA-amendment sliding scale.

Branson v. Washington Fine Wine & Spirits (Wash. Sept. 4, 2025) held that an "applicant" under RCW 49.58.110 need not apply in good faith to recover statutory damages — expanding standing for the post-2024 class-action wave. The article identifies the case by year + court in the quick-read (not name) per methodology.

NYC Commission on Human Rights publishes the $250,000 maximum penalty for uncorrected violations of Local Law 32 (the NYC pay-transparency ordinance).

NYC's pay-transparency guidance has explicitly flagged broad-range postings as failing the "good faith" test. Washington, California, and Colorado agencies apply parallel reasoning — a range that spans 4x the low end is presumptively not a good-faith estimate.

Synthesis of the article's through-line. A multi-state employer's cheapest defensive posture is to standardize to the strictest applicable rule (California's "upon hire" + Washington's per-applicant exposure + Massachusetts internal-promotion + NYC's $250K cap). The marginal effort is a tighter template; the avoided cost is the $100–$5,000-per-applicant penalty stack.