Search form

NYC Enacts New Law Limiting Prospective Employers’ Ability to Obtain and Use Salary History

By Jonathan L. Bing, Richard I. Greenberg, Daniel J. Jacobs, James L. Ansorge and Daisy A. Tomaselli
  • May 5, 2017

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio signed into law on May 4, 2017, legislation that will prohibit employers from inquiring about, relying upon, and verifying a job applicant’s salary history. The bill, authored by New York City Public Advocate Letitia James, will apply to all employers in New York City, public and private. The legislation will take effect on October 31, 2017, 180 days after signing.

Advocates of the legislation (Int. 1253-A, now Local Law 67) maintain that it will contribute to gender pay equity and reduce the likelihood that women will be prejudiced by prior salary levels. Mayor de Blasio has hailed the new law as a “milestone achievement” for pay equity.

This new law is similar to recently enacted laws in other jurisdictions, including Massachusetts, Puerto Rico, and Philadelphia. (See our articles, Massachusetts Governor Signs Tough Pay Equity Bill, Puerto Rico Enacts Equal Pay Law, Prohibits Employers from Inquiring about Past Salary History, and Philadelphia to Restrict Wage History in Hiring Decisions.)

Employer Prohibition on Inquiring About, Relying on Salary History Information

Local Law 67 prohibits employers from inquiring about a prospective employee’s salary history during all stages of the employment process.

The obligations imposed by Local Law 67 will prohibit an employer, employment agency, employee, or agent from:

  1. Inquiring about the salary history of a job applicant; and/or
  2. Relying on the salary history of a job applicant when determining his or her salary amount at any stage in the employment process, including when negotiating a contract.

Local Law 67 defines “to inquire” as “communicate any question or statement to an applicant, an applicant’s current or prior employer, or a current or former employee or agent of the applicant’s current or prior employer, in writing or otherwise, for the purpose of obtaining an applicant’s salary history, or to conduct a search of publicly available records or reports for the purpose of obtaining an applicant’s salary history.”

“Salary history” includes the applicant’s current or prior wage, benefits, or other compensation. It does not include any objective measure of the applicant’s productivity, such as revenue, sales, or other production reports.

Exceptions

Employers should note several significant exceptions and caveats.

First, if the applicant makes an unprompted and willing disclosure of his or her salary history to the prospective employer, the employer may consider salary history in determining the prospective employee’s salary, benefits, and other compensation, and verify the applicant’s salary history.

Second, an employer, without inquiring about salary history, may discuss salary, benefits, and other compensation expectations with the applicant, as well as any unvested equity or deferred compensation the applicant would forfeit or have cancelled by resigning his or her current employment. Should an employer’s attempt to verify an applicant’s non-salary-related information or conduct a background check that results in disclosure of the applicant’s salary history, the employer is prohibited from relying on the salary information during the hiring process and contract negotiation stages when setting the salary, benefits, or other compensation of the applicant.

Further, Local Law 67 does not apply to: 

  1. New York City employers acting pursuant to any federal, state, or local law authorizing the disclosure or verification of salary history, or requiring knowledge of salary history for employment purposes;
  2. Current employees applying for an internal promotion or transfer; or
  3. Public employee positions for which salary, benefits, or other compensation are determined pursuant to procedures established in collective bargaining.

Enforcement

The new law will be enforced by the New York City Commission on Human Rights, which will investigate complaints made under the law. The Commission may impose civil penalties ranging from $125, for an intentional violation, up to $250,000, for an “intentional malicious violation.”

The Commission also has the authority to promulgate further rules pursuant to the law.

Pursuant to the New York City Human Rights Law, individuals may pursue claims by way of a private right of action.

Suggested Employer Actions

In anticipation of the effective date, New York City employers should review and modify their employment applications, interview protocols, and verification policies to exclude inquiries that relate to a job applicant’s salary history.

Other Council Activity

New York employers should monitor progress of a significant employment legislation involving predictable scheduling and related issues that is before the Council. (For further information, see our article, New York City Council Seeks Major Workplace Reforms for Fast Food, Retail Workers.) The Council has held a hearing on these proposals and is expected to move forward with the legislation shortly.

While not employment-based, other proposed legislation relevant to New York employers would increase the minimum threshold for application of the Commercial Rent Tax, which applies to certain businesses below 96th Street in Manhattan.

***

Please contact Jackson Lewis with any questions regarding these developments, compliance, or government relations.

©2017 Jackson Lewis P.C. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

July 7, 2017

Context Matters: Mortgage Underwriters Don’t Meet FLSA’s Administrative Exemption, Ninth Circuit Concludes

July 7, 2017

Mortgage underwriters do not qualify for the Fair Labor Standards Act’s administrative exemption because they are more appropriately characterized as “production” employees, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. McKeen-Chaplin v. Provident Savings Bank, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 11950 (9th Cir. July 5, 2017). In so... Read More

July 6, 2017

Retail Industry Workplace Law Update - Summer 2017

July 6, 2017

U.S. Supreme Court: Plaintiffs May Not Voluntarily Dismiss Case to Appeal Class Certification Decision Curbing a litigation tactic used by class action plaintiffs, U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that such plaintiffs may not voluntarily dismiss their claims upon receiving an adverse class certification decision and subsequently invoke 28... Read More

June 30, 2017

DOL Will Issue New Rule to Set Salary for White Collar Exemptions, But Asks Fifth Circuit to Reverse District Court Order Granting Nationwide Preliminary Injunction

June 30, 2017

The government has asked the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse a Texas District Court Judge who issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking the Department of Labor’s Final Rule which would have more than doubled the required salary level for the “white collar” overtime exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act. On... Read More