Pay Transparency + the Power of Preventative Strategies: Episode 1 — Mitigating the Patchwork

Transcript

Laura Mitchell
Principal, Denver

Hello, everyone. Welcome to the first episode of a new series on pay transparency requirements. I'm Laura Mitchell, and I lead the Jackson Lewis Pay Equity Group. As 2025 is wrapping up and 2026 is just around the corner, we wanted to take a minute to remind employers of your existing and upcoming pay transparency obligations because there are a lot of them. 

First, before we do that, a quick housekeeping item. We've gone through some reorganization of our Practice Groups recently. As part of that, the firm has launched a new Workplace Analytics and Preventive Strategies Group, which the Pay Equity Group is now a part of. I'm excited to introduce you to Stacey Bastone and Chris Patrick, colleagues of mine and the new leaders of this group. Stacey and Chris, welcome and hello.

Chris Patrick
Principal, Denver

Thanks, Laura. Good to be here.

Stacey Bastone
Principal, New York City

Thanks for having us.

Mitchell

Of course. We're going to kick off pay transparency. I thought it would be a good way to start, just talking about the overarching patchwork of obligations that we have across the country for employers. Before we get into the details of that refresher today, would one of you like to share briefly about our pay equity and pay transparency practices and how they fit into this great new Workplace Analytics and Preventive Strategies Group?

Bastone

Sure. Thanks, Laura. We're thrilled that pay equity is part of this group. We feel like it really fits squarely into the mission of our Practice Group, which is to help employers use data to mitigate legal exposure and strengthen decision-making. Pay equity and pay transparency are two areas where data is really helpful, but not just helpful; it's essential. We work with employers to proactively analyze their compensation systems, identify pay disparities, and ensure compliance with the growing patchwork of state and federal laws. It includes everything from conducting privileged pay equity audits to advising on how to structure pay transparency disclosures in a way that's both legally compliant and culturally aligned. 

What's exciting about this Practice Group is that it's not just about reacting to risk; it's using analytics to prevent it. Pay equity is a perfect example of that. If you wait until there's a lawsuit or if there's an audit, you've already lost time, money, and may have already lost trust. If you use your data to get ahead of those issues, and if you understand where your vulnerabilities are and you address them, you're not just reducing legal risk, you're building a stronger, more engaged workforce.

Mitchell

It's so exciting. I'm really thrilled that we have this new platform for our Pay Equity Group. I'm very grateful to have the opportunity to lead this group, and even more excited that we get to talk about pay transparency together today. 

With that, as we're thinking about pay transparency, it has become and continues to be really burdensome for employers. Our predictions over the last several years, we don't like to say we told you so, but we kind of have told you so. Pay transparency is not going away. We continue to see more states set up rules, regulations, and requirements. 

Chris, how would you describe the current pay transparency landscape?

Patrick

That's a great question, Laura. If we were to throw it around the horn and each have one word about it, we'd all probably have different words. Mine would be inconsistent. 

As we think through what the pay transparency landscape looks like, employers are getting used to the term pay transparency. They're even getting used to disclosing a pay range in certain job postings, in particular where it's required. There's so much more to that than that. We're also talking about whether job postings have to have benefits information. Do job postings have to have other compensation information? What level of detail of those additional pieces of transparency is required, differs state by state? Some states require information beyond job postings and pay, but also promotional opportunities or post-selection notices to ensure that the workforce knows of opportunities to move throughout the organization. 

We've even seen some proposed regulations or rules come out recently that purport to change what a reasonable range of pay might be in terms of a certain percentage of that low end. That's a real change that we're not seeing in any other state right now. I don't know if it will hold. We'll see if it ultimately is part of the final requirements.

Speaking of New Jersey, for those of you who want to Google along at home, we also just saw some new updates on what pay range must be disclosed. There's little doubt that Washington's guidance says that a full range of pay is required in a job posting to meet its transparency requirements. However, California just amended its requirements to be only the starting pay range. It gets complicated. It gets confusing because it's inconsistent and therefore hard to navigate for national employers.

Mitchell 

Inconsistency is a great word. Also, there's nuance to it, and you have very specific requirements and regulations like the number of days of paid leave that have to be disclosed, compared to other states that just require a general statement that you get paid time off.

Patrick

Or nothing at all.

Mitchell

Exactly, so navigating that's really going to be difficult. Stacey, what do employers have to look forward to in 2026 and even beyond?

Bastone

There's a lot coming down the pipeline, and 2026 is shaping up to be another big year for pay transparency. First, we're likely going to see even more states and cities jumping in with new laws. Recently, we've seen places like New Jersey, Vermont, and Massachusetts have laws come into effect. There's proposed legislation throughout the country that we're continuing to monitor. If you're a multi-state employer, the patchwork is only going to get more complex.

It's not just about the new laws, right? As Chris was alluding to, expecting, and had in some cases, more detailed guidance, and we're expecting more from states that already have pay transparency rules. That may mean that employers will have to fine-tune how they're writing their job postings, communicating their pay ranges, and perhaps how to train their managers to talk about compensation. 

Another big development is paid data reporting. New York City, for example, is currently considering a proposal that would require employers to submit annual pay data broken down by race and gender. That's a huge shift because it's not just requiring the posting of salary ranges. It's about proactively providing information to your city, even in some instances, your state, like Illinois. Then, potentially, it’s about being able to explain and defend your pay practices with that data. 

Finally, we expect enforcement to ramp up. We've seen certain states already move into the enforcement phase, states like Washington and Colorado. We expect to see how other states are going to do it, those that are newer to the pay transparency space. 

Mitchell

I agree. We also have the global pay transparency aspects coming online as well. Not only if you're a multi-state employer, but if you're a multinational employer, you're going to have to layer in those requirements as well. 

Chris, as this landscape is continuing to become complicated and nuanced and inconsistent, what do you see as the biggest challenge facing employers?

Patrick

None of these laws is particularly complicated on its own. We all know how to identify whatever range a state requires to be included or whatever benefits the state requires to be included. The challenge is how to have a unified approach for national or international employers so that it's solvable and manageable. Some of these states include some cure rights, but you measure them in days. Five days or two days to cure. It's a real challenge for large employers to turn battleships that quickly and for small employers to understand what's wrong and what they need to fix. Unless, as Stacey is saying, we're getting our arms around where we are and what we need to have in place. 

The biggest challenge is execution, not theory or planning. It's having it done in a way that checks all the boxes that we need to check. In our ever-growing, ever-remote-first workforce, do we know all the places that we have to comply with? Did somebody move to a state that we didn't know about, and now all of a sudden we're covered? What does that look like in terms of our execution on these pay transparency requirements?

Mitchell

Given that, what would your piece of advice be for employers trying to navigate this?

Patrick

My advice is to identify your culture. Identify who you want to be in a pay transparency space. We could go back in time to 2016 or 2017, when California started a pay transparency journey requiring that employers give applicants knowledge of their pay range for the position they're applying to upon their request after an interview. That was the tip of the spear, cutting edge at the time. Now it's cute that we were also worried about that less than 10 years ago, given where we see the laws are today. The arc of pay transparency is bending towards more transparency. 

As employers are looking at their culture and who they want to be in this space, policy-wise, they need to evaluate: do we prioritize secrecy over our competitive advantage over operational efficiency or simplicity? Do we want to disclose only what's required in only the states where it's required? Do we want to disclose more than that in a way that makes it easier for us to comply? Do we want to disclose even more than that in order not to worry about pay transparency and just disclose the maximum everywhere, regardless of the specific requirements? None of those answers is right, and none of those answers is wrong. It's about fit for your culture and who you want to be as an organization in the space. That requires a lot of soul searching, not just for doers and implementers, but for leaders and policy setters to understand what the burden is and what the benefits are of the various paths, and how to implement those in order to get ahead of what the requirements ultimately are going to be.

Bastone

To add on to what Chris is saying, from a practical perspective, a great thing to think about is understanding your systems and building your infrastructure in a way that allows you to scale your compliance while also staying nimble. We've all been discussing that this is an area where the rules are changing fast, state by state, city by city, and they're not always aligned. If you're relying on a manual process or one-off fixes, you may fall behind. Chris talked about certain states having grace periods, allowing you two  or five days to fix mistakes before penalties kick in. That's great. They give you the time, but they're only helpful if you can identify the issue and fix it within that period of time. Those manual fixes or those last-minute updates, they're not enough. 

This is about cross-functional collaboration. This is making sure your legal, HR, compensation, and recruiting teams are aligned. The more that you can do to centralize your data and to standardize your approach, the easier it is going to be for you to stay compliant and respond quickly when the laws shift or when the guidance changes. This isn't just about checking a box. It's about building a foundation that supports transparency, fairness, and agility. That's what's really going to set employers apart in 2026 and beyond.

Mitchell

There's certainly a lot to think about and a lot to wrap your arms around and ensure that you understand what the requirements are. Chris, to your point, how are you as an organization going to respond to that?  Stacey, to your point, that takes getting ahead of it. Don't wait, and make sure that you're taking those proactive steps to get in front of all of this. 

Chris, Stacey, thank you so much for your time today. It's been a pleasure having our first podcast together. I look forward to many of them in the future. Listeners, thanks so much for joining in. We will be back with the next installment when we start talking to leaders within our industry groups about how pay transparency and pay equity are impacting their specific groups. Thanks so much, everyone, and have a great day.

Thank you for listening to Jackson Lewis' podcast, We Get Work. As a reminder, this material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice, nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. We Get Work is available on Apple Podcasts and YouTube. For more information on our topics, presenters, and other Jackson Lewis resources, visit JacksonLewis.com.