The District of Columbia will quickly require employers to reveal pay ranges in job postings after Mayor Muriel Bowser signed the Wage Transparency Omnibus Modification Act of 2023 into legislation on Friday January 12, 2024. When it goes into impact on June 30, 2024, the District will be a part of a rising variety of states with wage transparency legal guidelines, together with Illinois, California, New York, Colorado, Massachusetts, and Washington State.
New Obligations for D.C. Employers
The Act applies to employers of a minimum of one worker within the District and imposes a number of new employee-friendly necessities, together with the duty to incorporate a minimal and most projected wage or wage fee in marketed “job listings” and “place descriptions.” The pay vary should be based mostly on the employer’s good religion perception on the time of the posting.
The Act additionally requires the disclosure of the healthcare advantages that can be provided with the place, earlier than the primary interview. This requirement was amended from a previous model of the Act that required disclosure of the “full schedule of advantages.” Because the D.C. Council famous, merely disclosing the existence of healthcare advantages previous to the primary interview can be enough.
Furthermore, the Act prohibits employers from discrimination based mostly on wage historical past. Beneath the Act, employers can’t require that an applicant’s wage historical past fall inside a sure vary, and employers can’t request or require an applicant to reveal his/her wage historical past, nor might an employer ask a former employer about an applicant’s wage historical past.
Lastly, the Act expands current worker protections by prohibiting retaliation in opposition to staff who talk about “compensation,” which is broadly outlined as “all types of financial and nonmonetary advantages an employer supplies or guarantees to supply an worker in change for the worker’s companies to the employer.” Beforehand, District legislation solely prevented retaliation in opposition to staff who mentioned “wages.”
Unraveling Ambiguities within the Act
A number of ambiguities within the Act might increase questions on correct compliance. The next is a few normal steering to contemplate:
- Who Is an “Employer”? – Beneath the Act, an “employer” is anybody who employs a minimum of one worker within the District of Columbia. Nonetheless, it isn’t clear how usually an worker should work within the District to deliver an employer below the purview of the Act. rule of thumb is to comply with different District employment legal guidelines, which typically think about a person to be “employed within the District of Columbia” if the particular person repeatedly spends greater than 50% of their working time within the District or a big quantity of working time within the District, however no more than 50% in another state. See, e.g., D.C. Code 32-1003(b).
- Inside Place Postings Seemingly Apply – The Act doesn’t embrace a complete definition of “job listings” or “place descriptions,” nonetheless, the language used within the Act means that “job listings” and “place descriptions” ought to be interpreted broadly, and would come with inside job opening bulletins, and promotion or switch alternatives.
- “Compensation” Ought to Be Construed Broadly – The Act’s prohibition on retaliation contains worker discussions about “compensation,” which incorporates financial and nonmonetary advantages; but the Act doesn’t outline the scope of those advantages. It will be advisable to interpret the definition broadly to incorporate any remuneration supplied to staff for companies supplied.
Employers with a minimum of one worker within the District of Columbia might want to adjust to the District’s new wage transparency legislation that goes into impact on June 30, 2024. To arrange, we encourage employers to test their job postings for compliance and revise as acceptable, and be certain that staff concerned within the interviewing and recruiting course of are correctly educated to keep away from asking about wage historical past or basing a hiring choice on an applicant’s previous compensation.