As of April 2026, eleven states require employers to publish a salary range on every job posting. The list now includes California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Vermont, and Washington. Three additional states have laws scheduled to take effect during 2026: Michigan on July 1, New Jersey on July 31, and Rhode Island on October 1. Combined, these states cover approximately 36 percent of the U.S. workforce. Add in city level laws in Cincinnati, Columbus, Toledo, Jersey City, and the District of Columbia, and the share of postings subject to range disclosure climbs to roughly 41 percent.
The laws differ in detail. Most require the posted range to be a "good faith" estimate of what the employer would actually pay for the role. Some, including Colorado and Washington, also require the posting to disclose benefits and additional compensation such as bonuses or stock. Massachusetts, which took effect July 31, 2025, requires employers with 25 or more employees to disclose salary ranges and to provide pay data to applicants and current employees on request. Illinois, effective January 1, 2025, applies to all employers with 15 or more employees. New Jersey's law, effective in July, applies to employers with 10 or more employees and includes a private right of action with civil penalties up to $10,000.
The early outcome data is starting to come in. A March 2026 report from Indeed analyzing 14 million job postings between 2022 and 2025 found that postings with salary ranges receive 32 percent more applications and fill 18 percent faster than postings without ranges. The same study found that the median posted range narrowed from 32 percent of midpoint in 2022 to 19 percent in 2025, indicating that employers are tightening ranges as they get more comfortable with the practice. A Society for Human Resource Management survey from January found that 71 percent of HR leaders said the laws had forced their organizations to conduct internal pay equity reviews and that 47 percent had made adjustments to underpaid employees as a result.
The gender pay gap data is the headline outcome. The Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland published research in February examining the seven states with at least two years of transparency laws in effect. The paper found a 7 percent reduction in the within-firm gender pay gap relative to control firms in non-disclosure states. The reduction was driven primarily by upward adjustments to underpaid female employees rather than downward adjustments to overpaid male employees, which is consistent with the way most internal equity reviews are conducted. The reduction was largest in finance, technology, and professional services and smaller in manufacturing and retail.
For job seekers, the practical effect is meaningful. Negotiation now starts inside a defined range rather than from a number the candidate has no visibility into. Several large employers including Microsoft, Salesforce, Atlassian, and Patagonia have moved to a single posted number rather than a range, on the theory that a clear "this is what we pay" position simplifies hiring and reduces friction. The downside for candidates is that the room to negotiate above a posted ceiling has become harder. Recruiters at firms with strict range adherence have less authority to flex above the band, which has pushed candidates with leverage toward sign on bonuses and equity rather than base salary.
For employers operating across multiple states, the compliance burden is real. A national company posting a single national job listing must comply with the most stringent state law where the role can be performed. Remote-first companies have responded in two ways. Some, including GitLab and Coinbase, post role-by-role ranges and let candidates self select. Others have moved to a national pay band that prices to the median state and refuses to negotiate up to coastal cost of living, on the theory that consistency is worth the friction. The first approach attracts more applicants. The second tends to attract candidates who prefer transparency and predictability.
For mid career managers, the implication is that internal pay equity audits are now standard practice rather than the exception. Companies that have not yet conducted one are at material legal risk in covered states. The cost of an external pay equity audit ranges from $40,000 for a 100 employee company to $400,000 for a 5,000 employee company. The savings from preempting a class action or a state attorney general investigation typically exceed the audit cost by an order of magnitude. PwC and Mercer have both reported their pay equity consulting practices doubling in size in the last 18 months.
The next states likely to act in 2026 and 2027 include Oregon, where a bill cleared the House in February and is in Senate committee, and Pennsylvania, where Governor Josh Shapiro included a transparency proposal in his March budget address. Florida, Texas, and Tennessee have all considered and rejected similar legislation, with Tennessee specifically passing a 2024 preemption law preventing local governments from enacting their own transparency requirements. Federal legislation has been introduced in every Congress since 2021 but has not advanced. The Salary Transparency Act, reintroduced in February by Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton, has 87 House cosponsors and is unlikely to receive a vote in 2026.
Practical advice for someone job searching in 2026. Use the posted range as the starting point. Research the company's tier within the band by checking Levels.fyi for tech roles, Glassdoor for general roles, and state filed pay data for public companies. Ask the recruiter early whether the posted range includes target bonus and equity or only base. And do not be afraid to ask for the top of the band if your experience supports it.