�鶹ֱ��

In recent years, wage transparency laws have taken root in numerous states and localities across the U.S., adding a new layer of complexity to the hiring landscape. While each wage transparency law varies slightly, most require employers to disclose compensation information — such as salary or hourly pay ranges and benefits descriptions — when advertising for open positions.

Three recent developments — Delaware’s newly enacted wage transparency law, Maine’s recently signed pay transparency statute, and New Jersey’s proposed implementing regulations related to its wage transparency law — illustrate the continued momentum in this area and underscore the need for employers to remain apprised of changes and updates to the law.

Delaware’s Law

In September, Delaware Gov. Matt Meyer signed into law new pay transparency legislation, adding Delaware to the growing list of states enacting such laws.[1] Delaware’s pay transparency law, House Substitute 2 for H.B. 105, takes effect on Sept. 26, 2027, which gives Delaware employers two full years to adjust their policies and practices to ensure compliance.

As of the effective date, covered employers must disclose the hourly or salary compensation range, as well as a description of benefits and compensation in job postings every time they announce a job opportunity. This requirement applies to both external and internal job postings.

H.B. 105 defines the term “hourly or salary compensation range” as the “minimum to maximum pay range for the position, set in good faith by reference to any applicable pay scale, previously determined range for the position, the actual range of others currently holding equivalent positions, or the budgeted amount for the position, as applicable.”

The law applies to employers with more than 25 employees and covers job postings for positions that are located in Delaware, as well as job postings for noninternational remote positions that are offered by Delaware-based employers, even if the remote employee will perform their work outside the state.

Notably, the statute does not specify whether the coverage threshold of more than 25 employees refers to employees in Delaware specifically or companywide, creating an ambiguity that employers should be aware of until the Delaware Department of Labor provides further guidance. H.B. 105 applies to both private and public sector employers that meet the coverage threshold.

However, the law contains a few narrowly tailored exemptions. Specifically, temporary, interim or acting job opportunities that require an immediate hire are exempt from the posting disclosure requirement. In addition, employers are shielded from liability for job postings that are digitally replicated and published without their consent. Third parties that repost job opportunity notifications are not subject to enforcement.

Moreover, where a job opportunity is covered by a collective bargaining agreement, H.B. 105 specifies that the compensation or compensation range disclosed should be one that has been agreed upon for disclosure in the CBA itself.

It further provides that the pay transparency provision only becomes applicable to postings for opportunities that are covered by a CBA when the CBA is amended, modified or renewed after the law’s effective date, in order to give the parties an opportunity to consider and evaluate the range to be disclosed while negotiating the CBA.

H.B. 105 also includes special rules that apply to certain compensation structures. For commission-based positions, a posting must disclose that the position is paid on a commission basis, but need not disclose the compensation or compensation range. For tipped positions, postings must disclose that the position is paid on a tipped basis, and must also include the base wage rate for the position.

In addition to disclosure requirements, Delaware’s law imposes recordkeeping obligations. Employers must create and maintain records of job descriptions and salary or wage rate histories for each employee for at least three years. These records must be made available to the Delaware Department of Labor upon request.

There is currently no private right of action for a violation of H.B. 105. Rather, the law is to be enforced via administrative proceedings through the Delaware Department of Labor. For a first violation, employers will receive a written warning. Subsequent violations carry civil penalties ranging from $500 to $10,000 per infraction.

The law also includes antiretaliation provisions that prohibit employers from taking adverse action against employees or applicants who make complaints that are protected under the law or who provide information to the department.

Maine’s Law

On April 24, Maine became the latest state to mandate wage transparency when Gov. Janet Mills signed L.D. 54 into law.[2] Unlike Delaware’s legislation, Maine’s law is set to take effect quickly, on July 29.

L.D. 54 requires employers with 10 or more employees to ensure that any job posting includes a statement listing “the prospective range of pay the employer will offer to a successful applicant.” Unlike the Delaware statute, employers can be held liable for job postings appearing on third-party platforms.

The law defines “range of pay” as “the range of pay that an employer anticipates relying on in setting wages for a position,” including references to applicable pay scales, previously determined wage ranges, actual ranges for those holding equivalent positions or the budgeted amount for the role.

L.D. 54 also requires employers to disclose the pay range for a current employee’s position upon an employee’s request. Employers must maintain records of each position held and the pay history for each employee during employment and for three years following termination.

Like Delaware’s statute, Maine’s law does not explicitly clarify whether the 10-employee threshold is limited to employees within the state or whether it is based on the companywide employee headcount.

Proposed Rules on New Jersey’s Law

New Jersey’s Pay Transparency Act took effect last June, and requires covered employers to disclose salary or wage information in job postings, and to make reasonable efforts to notify current employees of opportunities for promotion.[3] While the underlying law is already operative, the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development published proposed rules in September to implement and clarify the act’s requirements.[4]

The proposed rules have not yet been adopted and remain nonbinding, though they shed light on how the department views the law and its enforcement priorities. Employers should remain alert to the department’s proposed rules to ensure that they are aware if and when the rules become final.

The proposed rules provide helpful clarification on several points. First, they confirm that the act applies to any employer with at least 10 employees over 20 calendar weeks, regardless of where those employees work, so long as the employer does business, employs people or takes applications in New Jersey.

The proposed rules further clarify that if an employer advertises a pay range, as opposed to a single rate, the range spread must not exceed 60% of the minimum pay — meaning a range of $100,000 to $160,000 would comply, while $100,000 to $200,000 would not. Open-ended ranges are not permitted either.

The proposed rules also define “benefits” to include fringe benefits, such as health, life and disability insurance; paid time off; training; and pension benefits.

Regarding enforcement, the existing New Jersey statute provides for penalties of up to $300 for a first violation and up to $600 for each subsequent violation. Employers that post a single noncompliant listing across multiple platforms may face penalties for each platform on which the violation appears.

The department recently engaged in an affirmative enforcement initiative, working with more than 40 of the state’s largest and most prominent employers to ensure compliance with the act.[5] The employers that were selected initially had job postings that, in the department’s view, did not meet the act’s requirements, but they each cooperated in good faith to amend or alter their postings to come into compliance with the law.

This recent large-scale initiative sheds light on the department’s current enforcement priorities, and underscores the importance of staying up to date with the act’s requirements and the department’s interpretations of the same.

Best Practices for Employers

Given the rapidly changing landscape of state wage transparency laws, employers — particularly those operating in multiple states — should develop a thorough strategy for complying with the legal requirements.

For one, employers should consider conducting an audit of their existing compensation structures, including pay ranges and salary bands, to ensure that they are prepared to provide the same in covered job postings.

Employers should also review and standardize job posting templates to ensure that each posting includes the required compensation and benefits disclosures for the relevant jurisdiction. This includes coordinating with any third-party recruiters, staffing agencies or job board services to ensure that those entities understand and comply with applicable posting obligations.

Further, employers should ensure that their recordkeeping practices satisfy any applicable requirements. For example, as noted above, Delaware and Maine require retention of job descriptions and pay histories for three years after separation.

Human resources personnel and hiring managers should also receive targeted training on the new requirements, including guidance on fielding employee questions about compensation, communicating pay ranges during the hiring process and understanding antiretaliation protections.

For multistate employers, the compliance challenge is particularly acute. Each jurisdiction’s law differs in its threshold for coverage, the specificity of required disclosures, the definition of covered positions and the applicable penalties. Multistate employers should therefore assess how overlapping requirements intersect with their overall compensation transparency strategy.

Employers should also be attentive to the practical implications that flow from the ambiguities and open questions posed by these newly created laws. As discussed above, Delaware and Maine have yet to specify whether the thresholds for the number of employees refer to in-state employees or the total companywide headcount. New Jersey’s proposed regulations have not yet been finalized.

These unsettled issues create compliance risks, particularly for employers that are operating near the statutory thresholds or across state lines. Until clarifications on these and other open questions become available, employers may wish to approach wage transparency issues conservatively, assuming that the broadest interpretation of coverage applies.

Employers should monitor rulemaking, agency guidance and early enforcement actions, as these developments will shape the contours of each law and may require adjustments going forward.

Finally, employers should consider integrating wage transparency matters into their broader compliance plan. As more states and localities adopt wage transparency laws — and as existing laws are refined — the web of overlapping obligations will grow more complex. Designating a centralized group to track developments, update policies and coordinate with appropriate third parties can help ensure compliance.

Conclusion

The recent developments in Delaware, Maine and New Jersey demonstrate continued evolution in the wage transparency area. Employers can expect to see similar developments in other states and localities in the coming years, and thus should remain apprised of changes and updates to the applicable legal landscape in order to ensure compliance.

• .
• MzA3Ny4xNzc4OTU4MjQ2*_ga_N8RFJ4LE4D*czE3Nzg5NTgyNDYkbzEkZzEkdDE3Nzg5NTgyN zAkajM2JGwwJGgw*_ga_2F7W0D0NDJ*czE3Nzg5NTgyNDckbzEkZzAkdDE3Nzg5NTgyNDckaj YwJGwwJGgw&_ga=2.44033637.1560986807.1778958246-1061603077.1778958246.
• %20N.J.R.%202220_a_.pdf.

This article was originally published in on June 11, 2026, and is republished here with permission.