Washington Supreme Court broadens pay transparency liability

The Washington Supreme Court has ruled that any job applicant may bring a lawsuit against an employer that violates the state’s pay transparency law, potentially opening employers up to an increase in lawsuits and damages.

The case, Branson v. Washington Fine Wine & Spirits, turned on the definition of job applicant under the law. Two plaintiffs applied for job openings in response to job postings that lacked pay information, then filed suit against the employer.

The employer argued that a plaintiff must prove that they are a “bona fide applicant” who has “an intent or genuine interest in obtaining a job” in order to have standing to sue under the law. But the court disagreed, reasoning that the legislature would have specified if it intended a definition of job applicant that diverged from the term’s plain meaning. An individual “need only apply to any solicitation intended to recruit job applicants for a specific available position,” regardless of subjective intent, the court held.

In other words, any individual can gain standing to sue – and potentially obtain damages – by submitting a job application in response to a noncompliant job posting, regardless of whether the individual is interested in or qualified for the role.

The decision is likely to have repercussions beyond Washington. Even employers that do not have a physical presence in Washington are covered under the state’s pay transparency law if they have any Washington-based employees or are hiring for a remote role that could be performed by a Washington-based employee.

The Washington pay transparency law is one of the strictest in the country. Enacted in 2022, it requires employers with 15 or more employees to include a pay scale and general description of benefits and other compensation in any job posting. Washington’s job posting requirements are more prescriptive than those in many other states with similar laws, creating ample opportunities for compliance missteps.