Methodology: Pay Transparency Salary Range Disclosure Helper

What this helper gives you

This helper answers one compliance question: do you have to disclose a salary range for a given work state and situation?

You pick:

1. The work state (or the state whose residents could perform a remote role)
2. The context — job posting, applicant, or current employee

The result shows:

• Whether disclosure is required, on request, not required, pending, or absent
• What the statute says must be disclosed (range, benefits, job description, etc.)
• The employer size / presence threshold
• Effective date status
• Remote and city-ordinance notes when the research table flags them
• The statute citation (with a link when available)

It does not invent a dollar band. Building a defensible min/max is a compensation decision; this tool only tells you whether the law expects disclosure and what categories it names.

Why three contexts

State laws attach the duty at different moments:

Examples:

• California — posting required (Lab. Code §432.3); employees get the pay scale on request.
• Colorado — range + benefits in all postings, including many internal openings (Colo. Rev. Stat. §8-5-201).
• Connecticut / Rhode Island — on request for applicants (and employees); not a mandatory ad range.
• District of Columbia — min/max salary + healthcare benefits before the first interview (D.C. Code §32-1452), not necessarily in the ad.
• Texas — no statewide salary-range disclosure statute.

How the lookup works

1. Select state row from the research-backed table (51 jurisdictions).
2. Select context field: jobPosting | applicant | employee.
3. Apply effective-date logic:
   - If the statute’s effectiveDate is after the as-of date → pending-effective
     (or keep pending summaries for Maine / Delaware until live).
   - If as-of is on/after effectiveDate → live required / on-request levels.
4. Attach threshold, whatMustBeDisclosed, citation, remoteNote, cityNotes, notes.

Default as-of is 2026-07-25 (tool authoring calendar). That means:

• Virginia (July 1, 2026) → treated as in force
• Maine (July 29, 2026) → still pending
• Delaware (September 26, 2027) → pending

Requirement levels

“Not required” is not the same as “no statute.” DC is a clean example: no mandatory ad range, but applicant disclosure is required before interview.

What counts as “what must be disclosed”

Copied from the research state-by-state table, not paraphrased into a looser marketing line. Typical packages:

• Range only — Hawaii (hourly rate or salary range)
• Range + benefits — Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, Washington
• Range + job description — New York §194-b
• Range “upon hire” — California after SB 642 (2026)
• On-request wage range — Connecticut, Rhode Island
• Before first interview — DC (salary band + healthcare benefits description)

The “good faith” standard is nearly universal: the band should be what you reasonably expect to pay, not a performative $50k–$250k window.

Remote and multi-state postings

The helper surfaces remote notes for states the research flags:

• California — remote roles a CA resident could perform
• Colorado — remote postings CO residents could perform (carve-out removed)
• New York — roles reporting to a NY supervisor or office
• Maine (after July 29, 2026) — work that can be performed in Maine
• Washington / Virginia — defensive multi-state practice notes

Practical posture from the research: one defensible range that satisfies the strictest applicable state, or regional ranges that match real pay practice.

City ordinances (notes only)

State rows for New York, New Jersey, and Ohio include concurrent city rules documented in research:

• New York City Admin Code §8-107(32) / §8-126 (up to $250,000 per uncorrected violation)
• Jersey City Ord. 21-076
• Ithaca Local Law 2022-3
• Cincinnati, Toledo, Cleveland, Columbus Ohio ordinances

There is no separate city picker in v1.

What is not modeled

• A generated salary number — you bring the band; the tool checks the disclosure duty.
• Federal contractor OFCCP pay-transparency retaliation rules (41 CFR §60-1.35) as a posting mandate — they are anti-retaliation, not ad-range rules.
• Pay-data reporting as a first-class output (California SB 1162 / Cal. Gov. Code §12999, Illinois EPRC, Massachusetts EEO reporting) — mentioned in notes where material, not calculated.
• Exact penalty math per posting (use counsel + statute; research has a penalty matrix).
• Full city ordinance matrix beyond research notes.
• Collective-bargaining overrides and every industry carve-out (Hawaii public CBA carve-out is noted).
• Whether a specific range width fails “good faith” — case- and facts-specific.

Data sources

State rules are copied from the companion research Pay transparency laws by state (state-by-state table + narrative sections on remote work, city ordinances, and enforcement). Primary statutes include:

• California Labor Code §432.3
• Colorado Rev. Stat. §8-5-201 et seq.
• New York Labor Law §194-b
• Washington RCW §49.58.110
• Connecticut Gen. Stat. §31-40z
• D.C. Code §32-1452
• Massachusetts G.L. c.149 §105F
• Virginia Code §40.1-28.7:12

When state law changes, update the research table first, then this tool’s data.ts in the same change set.

How accurate is this?

Strongest as a duty lookup: correct state, correct context, correct effective-date framing. Context summaries are written for employers, but the load-bearing fields (threshold, what must be disclosed, citation) track the research table.

It is not a substitute for counsel when you face NYC exposure, Washington class-action risk, multi-state remote postings, or pay-data reporting deadlines. Use the citation link, the research page, and employment counsel for those decisions.