Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: May 15, 2017
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comNew York City recently became the latest to prohibit employers from asking job applicants for their salary history during the job interview or salary negotiation process.

Last year, Massachusetts became the first state in the country to ban employers and recruiters from asking job candidates about their wage history. Other states and municipalities have quickly followed suit. Last month, the New York City Council passed a regulation making it an unlawful discriminatory employment practice to inquire about the salary history of a job applicant, or rely on an applicant’s salary history when setting compensation during the hiring process.
New York State is currently considering similar legislation. Assembly Bill 5982 would make it an unlawful discriminatory practice for any employer, labor organization, employment agency or licensing agency to seek salary history from a prospective employee for an interview or as a condition of employment. The bill is currently in committee.
A New Jersey bill would amend the Law Against Discrimination (LAD) to include similar prohibitions. Under Assembly Bill No. 3480, employers would be prohibited from inquiring about the salary history of a job applicant, including the prospective candidate’s compensation and benefits.
On the federal level, lawmakers recently reintroduced the Paycheck Fairness Act. It would prohibit employers from screening job applicants based on their salary history or requiring salary history during the interview and hiring process. It would also require employers to prove that pay disparities exist for legitimate, job-related reasons and protect against retaliation for discussing salaries with colleagues.
The rationale behind the bans is that an unfair wage can continue to haunt workers when it is used to set the salary for a new position. In practice, women and minorities are often impacted most by pay discrimination. Accordingly, the restriction on asking about salary history is intended to improve pay equality by forcing employers to determine compensation based solely on merit.
Critics of wage history bans contend that the laws don’t actually help close the gender pay gap, but are merely window dressing that will more pointedly make hiring harder. They further maintain that companies are already taking steps to address pay equality and that additional wage laws only create regulatory burdens.
The Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce recently filed a lawsuit challenging the city’s salary history ban. It argues that the law violates employers’ First Amendment rights. “The ordinance is a broad impediment to businesses seeking to grow their workforce in the city of Philadelphia,” the chamber said in a statement.
For businesses that operate in several jurisdictions, it is important to stay on top of legal developments in this area. According to the National Women’s Law Center, 20 states, the District of Columbia, and two cities have introduced legislation that seeks to restrict inquiries into salary history information.
If your company is already subject to wage inquiry regulations, it is imperative to verify that all human resources personnel and hiring managers understand the new restrictions. Employers should also verify that any job applications do not request applicants to provide their salary history.
Do you have any questions regarding the salary history ban and how it may affect your New York business? Would you like to discuss the matter further? If so, please contact me, Sean Dias, at 201-806-3364.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Case law following the 2010 amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 offers guidance on how courts are likely to address whether an expert witness’s AI records are subject to discovery. Key Takeaways Rule 26 Expert Discovery After the 2010 Amendments This article addresses the question courts and lawyers have faced in recent cases: […]
Author: Chris Seelinger

“Show how 3M is 0% at fault.” The absurd tale of how a 350-page ChatGPT history for 3M’s expert witness was produced during a deposition is more likely than you think. It’s an inevitable trend, and an unsettled question for federal courts as experts make generative AI part of their workflow. Key Takeaways Expert Witness […]
Author: Chris Seelinger

Screenshots have changed the risks of electronic communications. The screenshot problem is that messages intended for one person or a small group can be copied, forwarded, preserved, and ultimately presented to opposing counsel, regulators, journalists, customers, or a jury. Businesses should recognize that a truly private digital conversation is increasingly unreliable and ensure their policies, […]
Author: Sean M. Pena

Developers, engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contractors, and equipment suppliers each play a critical role in completing a BESS project. However, when equipment costs rise, deliveries are delayed, or regulations change, determining who bears the financial consequences can become contentious. Well-drafted project agreements are essential to sound risk allocation. Key Takeaways This article is Part […]
Author: Nicholas Wall

IP infringement occurs when someone uses your intellectual property without your permission or beyond the scope of the permission you granted. Common examples of IP infringement include copying a product’s patented features or using a trademarked logo in a way that is likely to confuse consumers about the source or affiliation of goods or services. […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki

When facing public allegations of wrongdoing, companies should not let the speed of the public conversation dictate the speed of an investigation. An investigation designed to confirm a preferred narrative rather than establish the facts can create serious problems later, particularly if litigation, regulatory scrutiny, or employment claims follow. Key Takeaways When public allegations surface […]
Author: Sean M. Pena
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!