$ 500 million
what’ s working
Tips for employers
For the next two years, employers have an opportunity to correct job postings without being held liable for damages. If an employer receives written notice of an allegedly deficient job posting, the employer can correct the job posting within five business days and avoid administrative or judicial penalties.
250 class-action lawsuits
have been filed against employers since the pay transparency law took effect in 2023.
A single law firm filed
75 %
Since the law doesn’ t specify who must receive the notice, staff should be trained to recognize a notice and forward it promptly to HR, or the staff member responsible for job postings.
The opportunity to make corrections to avoid penalties ends July 2027. of the total lawsuits
Potential employer liability adds up to
$ 500 million
3. Correction window: For the next two years, if an employer receives written notice of an allegedly deficient job posting, the employer can correct the job posting within five business days and then be immune to administrative or judicial penalties. This protection ends in July 2027.
SB 5408 originally proposed a 10-day correction window, but lawmakers shortened it to five days and added a two-year expiration. While not a perfect solution, the changes offer meaningful relief for employers trying to comply with the relatively new law.
On the House side, Democratic state Reps. Mary Fosse and Larry Springer played key roles in supporting the bill.
“ We want to protect workers and we want to enforce transparency laws, but we don’ t want to unjustly harm businesses that are making mistakes where the penalty doesn’ t match a minor job posting violation,” Fosse said.
court takes broad view of‘ job applicant’
One of the pay transparency lawsuits made its way to the state Supreme Court, which was asked: should job applicants be required to prove they are“ bona fide” or“ good faith” applicants to collect damages under the new law?
Many plaintiffs who filed lawsuits admitted they weren’ t actually seeking employment, lacked the required qualifications, or lived out of state and said they had no plans to relocate. They simply applied for the purpose of filing a suit and collecting damages. Eight plaintiffs brought more than 100 suits.“ A lot of these lawsuits were coming from people who lived thousands of miles away, or over 100 miles away, and who didn’ t possess the licensure, criteria or physical capability to have the job,” Hueer said.
In an amicus brief supporting employers, AWB urged the court to clarify that only applicants genuinely seeking— and qualified for— a specific job should be allowed to bring claims under the pay transparency law. This clarification, along with the legislative changes passed this year, would have helped stem frivolous lawsuits.
Unfortunately, in September, the state Supreme Court ruled against employers in the case. In the 6-3 ruling, the court held that job applicants can sue employers for damages without having to prove they are a“ good faith” or“ bona fide” applicants.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sheryl Gordon McCloud warned that the majority’ s broad definition of“ job applicant” will encourage those with no real interest in a job to hunt for noncompliant postings simply to claim damages.“ Employers could be exposed to nearly limitless class-action liability for a single noncompliant job posting,” she wrote.
“ The Legislature enacted the Equal Pay & Opportunities Act to protect Washington workers and to fight employer discrimination,” Gordon McCloud said.“ It did not enact the EPOA to give bounty seekers an incentive to trawl the Internet for noncompliant job postings to obtain a statutory damages award unrelated to any personal harm.” fall 2025 25