Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 49.58.110 (2026)

Disclosure of wage or salary range by employer—When required—Violations—Remedies

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Required disclosures in postings.
(a) The employer must disclose in each posting for each job opening: (i) The wage scale or salary range, except where the employer is offering only a fixed wage amount for the opening, the employer must disclose the fixed wage amount rather than a scale or range; and (ii) a general description of all of the benefits and other compensation to be offered to the hired applicant. For the purposes of this section, "posting" means any solicitation intended to recruit job applicants for a specific available position, including recruitment done directly by an employer or indirectly through a third party, and includes any postings done electronically, or with a printed hard copy, that includes qualifications for desired applicants. "Posting" does not include a solicitation for recruiting job applicants that is digitally replicated and published without an employer's consent.
(b) For any postings from July 27, 2025, through July 27, 2027, an employer must be afforded an opportunity to correct a violation of this subsection (1) before a job applicant may seek remedies under subsection (4) or (5) of this section. Any person may provide written notice to an employer alleging that the employer's posting does not comply with this subsection (1). If an employer receives notice from any person as to a particular posting, this constitutes adequate notice for the duration of that posting for any job applicant seeking remedies under subsection (4) or (5) of this section. If the employer corrects the posting within five business days of receiving the written notice and, where applicable, contacts any applicable third-party posting entity with a demand to correct the posting, then neither the department nor the court may assess or award penalties, damages, or other relief under this section for the violation. This subsection (1)(b) does not apply after July 27, 2027.
(2) Required disclosures for internal transfers and promotions.
Upon request of an employee offered an internal transfer to a new position or promotion, the employer must provide the wage scale or salary range for the employee's new position, except where the employer is offering only a fixed wage amount for the new position or promotion, the employer must disclose the fixed wage amount rather than a scale or range.
(3) Application.
This section only applies to employers with 15 or more employees.
(4) Administrative remedies.
(a) The director shall investigate if a job applicant or employee files a complaint with the department alleging a violation of this section. If the director determines that a violation occurred, the director shall attempt to resolve the violation by conference and conciliation. If no agreement is reached to resolve the violation, the director may issue a citation and notice of assessment and may order the employer to pay each affected job applicant or employee statutory damages of no less than $100 and no more than $5,000 per violation. If ordering statutory damages, the department shall consider the following when determining the amount of those damages: Whether the violation was committed willfully or the violation is a repeat violation; the size of the employer; the amount necessary to deter future noncompliance; the purposes of this chapter; and any other factor deemed appropriate by the department. In addition to statutory damages, the director may:
(i) Order payment of the department's costs of investigation and enforcement to the department;
(ii) Assess a civil penalty of up to $500 for a first violation or up to $1,000 for a repeat violation; and
(iii) Order actual damages, reinstatement, injunctive relief, or other appropriate relief for an employee injured by a violation of subsection (2) of this section.
(b) An appeal from the director's finding or determination may be made in accordance with chapter 34.05 RCW. An employee or job applicant who prevails is entitled to costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.
(c) The department shall deposit civil penalties paid under this section in the supplemental pension fund established under RCW 51.44.033.
(5) Private civil action.
(a) A job applicant or employee may bring a civil action against an employer for a violation of this section. A prevailing job applicant or employee is entitled to statutory damages of no less than $100 and no more than $5,000 per violation, plus reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. In determining the amount of statutory damages, the court shall consider the following: Whether the violation was committed willfully or the violation is a repeat violation; the size of the employer; the amount necessary to deter future noncompliance; the purposes of this chapter; and any other factor deemed appropriate by the court. The court may also order actual damages, reinstatement, injunctive relief, and other appropriate remedies for an employee injured by a violation of subsection (2) of this section.
(b) The job applicant or employee shall bring a civil action within three years of the date of the alleged violation of this section regardless of whether the job applicant or employee pursued an administrative complaint. Filing a civil action under this subsection terminates the director's processing of the complaint under subsection (4) of this section. A job applicant or employee may be awarded damages by the department under subsection (4) of this section or the court under subsection (5) of this section, but not both.
(6) Exclusive remedies.
The administrative remedies and private right of action under this section constitute the exclusive remedies for violations of this section. The remedies under RCW 49.58.060 and 49.58.070 are not available for violations of this section.
(7) Rules.
The department may adopt rules for purposes of implementing and enforcing this section.
[ 2025 c 383 s 1; 2022 c 242 s 1; 2019 c 345 s 3.]

Notes:

Effective date2022 c 242: "This act takes effect January 1, 2023." [ 2022 c 242 s 2.]
Short title2019 c 345: See note following RCW 49.58.005.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 52 cases (52 in the last 5 years), 2023–2026 · leading case: Branson v. Wash. Fine Wine & Spirits, LLC (Wash. 2025).
Branson v. Wash. Fine Wine & Spirits, LLC (Wash. 2025). · cites it 48× “1 This case concerns the interpretation of the key term “job applicant” in RCW 49.58.110(4). The federal district court has asked this court to determine what a plaintiff must prove to be deemed a “job applicant.”
Atkinson v. Aaron's LLC (W.D. Wash. 2024). · cites it 14× “Within a few months, 20 multiple plaintiffs, represented by Emery Reddy, PLLC, filed multiple putative class-action 21 lawsuits against various companies who had job postings that are alleged to be non-compliant with 22 the EPOA job-posting provision.”
Atkinson v. Aaron's LLC (W.D. Wash. 2024). · cites it 14× “RCW 49.58.110. Employees and job applicants are entitled to remedies for 19 violations of this provision, which may include statutory damages.”
Floyd v. Insight Global LLC (W.D. Wash. 2024). · cites it 13× “Within a few months, 20 multiple plaintiffs, represented by Emery Reddy, PLLC, filed multiple putative class-action 21 lawsuits against various companies who had job postings that are alleged to be non-compliant with 22 the EPOA job-posting provision.”
Floyd v. Insight Global LLC (W.D. Wash. 2024). · cites it 13× “RCW 49.58.110. Employees and job applicants are entitled to remedies for 19 violations of this provision, which may include statutory damages.”
David v. Herc Rentals Inc (W.D. Wash. 2024). · cites it 9× “Within a few months, a few 20 plaintiffs, represented by Emery Reddy, PLLC, filed multiple putative class-action lawsuits against 21 various companies who had job postings that are alleged to be non-compliant with the EPOA job- 22 posting provision.”
Floyd (W.D. Wash. 2025). · cites it 9× “See 15 Wash. Rev. Code § 49.58.110 ; Dkt. No. 1-1.”
Wright (W.D. Wash. 2025). · cites it 8× “2025) (en banc); Wash. Rev. Code § 49.58.110 (1). Job applicants may bring a 24 civil action against an employer for actual damages or statutory damages for violations of the 1 EPOA’s disclosure requirements.”
Spencer (W.D. Wash. 2026). · cites it 7× “2025) (en banc); see also Wash. Rev. Code § 49.58.110 (1). Job applicants may 24 bring a civil action against an employer for actual damages or statutory damages for violations of 1 the EPOA’s disclosure requirements.”
Moliga v. Qdoba Restaurant Corp. (W.D. Wash. 2023). · cites it 6× “3 at 2, again overlooks the fact that submission of a job application does not necessarily mean that the attendant job posting was deficient or that 22 the applicant otherwise has a cause of action under Section 49.58.110. Ibarra, 775 F.3d at 1198 (“CAFA’s requirements are to be…”
Hill (W.D. Wash. 2025). · cites it 5× “INTRODUCTION 15 This case is one of many putative class actions brought under the pay transparency 16 provisions of Washington’s Equal Pay and Opportunities Act (EPOA), RCW 49.58.110. That 17 statute requires employers to disclose in their job postings “the wage scale or salary…”
Moquete v. GNC Holdings LLC (W.D. Wash. 2024). · cites it 4× “She also claimed the defendants 21 violated the Equal Pay and Opportunity Act (EPOA), RCW 49.58.110, by failing to 22 1 include wage and benefits information in job postings.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.58.110(1) — 13 cases
Branson v. Wash. Fine Wine & Spirits, LLC (Wash. 2025). “1 This case concerns the interpretation of the key term “job applicant” in RCW 49.58.110(4). The federal district court has asked this court to determine what a plaintiff must prove to be deemed a “job applicant.”
Moliga v. Qdoba Restaurant Corp. (W.D. Wash. 2023). “3 at 2, again overlooks the fact that submission of a job application does not necessarily mean that the attendant job posting was deficient or that 22 the applicant otherwise has a cause of action under Section 49.58.110. Ibarra, 775 F.3d at 1198 (“CAFA’s requirements are to be…”
Hill (W.D. Wash. 2025). “INTRODUCTION 15 This case is one of many putative class actions brought under the pay transparency 16 provisions of Washington’s Equal Pay and Opportunities Act (EPOA), RCW 49.58.110. That 17 statute requires employers to disclose in their job postings “the wage scale or salary…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.58.110(1)(a) — 1 case
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.58.110(4) — 22 cases
Branson v. Wash. Fine Wine & Spirits, LLC (Wash. 2025). “1 This case concerns the interpretation of the key term “job applicant” in RCW 49.58.110(4). The federal district court has asked this court to determine what a plaintiff must prove to be deemed a “job applicant.”
Floyd v. Photon Infotech Inc (W.D. Wash. 2025).
Davis v. Delta Air Lines Inc (W.D. Wash. 2025).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 49.58.110(5) — 2 cases
Branson v. Wash. Fine Wine & Spirits, LLC (Wash. 2025). “1 This case concerns the interpretation of the key term “job applicant” in RCW 49.58.110(4). The federal district court has asked this court to determine what a plaintiff must prove to be deemed a “job applicant.”
Floyd (W.D. Wash. 2025). “See 15 Wash. Rev. Code § 49.58.110 ; Dkt. No. 1-1.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.