Coverage thresholds, what has to be disclosed and filed, by when, and what happens if it isn’t — for employers with people in Washington.
Washington has the most active pay transparency litigation environment in the country. A 2025 Supreme Court decision held that anyone who applies to a posting is a “job applicant” regardless of intent — and the legislature responded within months.
Employers with 15 or more employees, counting employees with no Washington presence so long as at least one employee is Washington-based.
The legislature’s response to a wave of class actions. It is temporary, and the clock is running.
In Branson v. Washington Fine Wine & Spirits, LLC (September 2025), the Washington Supreme Court held that a “job applicant” under the Equal Pay and Opportunities Act is anyone who applies to a posting, regardless of subjective intent. There is no bona fide applicant requirement.
Combined with a private right of action and statutory damages of $100 to $5,000 per violation, that decision made every non-compliant posting a potential class. It is the direct reason SSB 5408 exists.
Through 27 July 2027, an applicant or employee must give the employer written notice of a non-compliant posting, and an employer that corrects it within five business days faces no penalties or damages from either L&I or a court.
After 27 July 2027 the provision expressly does not apply. Employers relying on cure as a de facto compliance strategy have a defined runway, and it is shorter than it sounds given that most postings live in an applicant tracking system nobody has audited end to end.
Per L&I guidance, the 15-employee count includes employees with no physical presence in Washington, so long as the employer has at least one Washington-based employee. Whether part-time and temporary workers count toward the threshold is not clearly addressed in the guidance; treat that as unsettled.
Washington has no affirmative pre-selection posting obligation and no post-selection announcement requirement — those are Colorado features. What Washington does require is disclosure on request: an employer with 15 or more employees must provide the wage scale or salary range of the new position to an employee who is offered an internal transfer or promotion, if that employee asks. SSB 5408 clarified that a fixed wage amount may be given where only one amount is offered.
Chapter 49.58 RCW contains no EPOA-specific record retention requirement, and L&I’s employer guide specifies no retention period. Washington’s general payroll record obligations sit outside the EPOA under the Minimum Wage Act. Do not assume an EPOA retention rule exists; do keep posting records anyway, because the cure provision and the good-faith range defence both depend on being able to show what was posted and when.
We support Washington employers on the compensation side of this — pay equity analysis, range architecture, and how executive pay reads inside a filing or a published range. We are not attorneys and this page is not legal advice; the filings themselves are usually handled with employment counsel.
For advisory work in the region, see our Seattle executive compensation page.
Yes, but not for long. SSB 5408 introduced it effective 27 July 2025, and it expressly expires on 27 July 2027. During that window, an employer given written notice of a non-compliant posting that corrects it within five business days faces no penalties or damages. After the expiry date the provision does not apply at all.
No. L&I guidance is explicit that an employer cannot escape the requirement by stating in the posting that Washington applicants will not be accepted. The test is whether the position could be filled by a Washington-based employee, which for most remote roles it can.
Generally yes, where the role could be performed in Washington or reports into a Washington supervisor, office or worksite. The specifics vary — some states test on where the work is performed, others on the reporting line, and several catch out-of-state employers recruiting locally-based remote staff. Check the coverage language above against your own arrangements rather than assuming a headquarters test.
No. It is a compensation practitioner's summary of published requirements, current as at July 2026, intended to help you scope the compensation work these obligations create. Pay legislation in this area has been amended frequently and several provisions carry sunset dates. Confirm current requirements with employment counsel before acting.
Pay equity analysis and range architecture, sequenced so findings can be acted on rather than merely disclosed.
Tell us what you’re working through and we’ll follow up directly.