Salary History Questions Are Illegal In Many States: Why Are Women Still Navigating Them?

When looking for a new job or a promotion, most women know the unspoken rule to not seem too interested in the paycheck. But then comes the question: “What are you currently earning?”

The contradiction is hard to miss. Workers are encouraged to treat salaries as private until a prospective employer wants access to theirs. For women, that disclosure can mean carrying yesterday’s pay inequity into tomorrow’s opportunity.

Salary history bans are designed to interrupt that cycle, but changing the law and changing hiring culture are two different things.

There is no universal U.S. ban on salary history questions. Protections depend on state and local law, and some apply only to public employers. California and New York are among the states that prohibit employers from seeking applicants’ salary histories.

In California, the restriction generally covers questions about previous compensation and benefits, including inquiries made through recruiters. Employers can, however, ask about salary expectations. “What did you earn?” and “What are you seeking?” are legally different questions.

That distinction matters. Your previous paycheck reflects what another employer paid you under different circumstances. It does not establish what a new position or your experience is worth.

Aileen Rizo’s experience illustrates the consequences. As NPR reported in 2017, the Fresno County math teaching consultant discovered that a newly hired male colleague with less education and experience was offered roughly 20% more than she earned. Human resources told her that her compensation had been based on her previous pay.

“I couldn’t educate myself out of being paid less,” Rizo told NPR.

Her experience predates California’s salary history ban, but it captures the problem these protections address: An earlier salary can become a ceiling, even as qualifications and responsibilities grow.

The U.S. Department of Labor has also identified caregiving interruptions and the historical undervaluing of women’s work as reasons salary history can perpetuate inequality. Women returning after time away may bring valuable skills while having an outdated salary attached to their names.

The issue is not that only women receive these questions. It is that women can face different consequences when answering or declining to answer.

A 2017 study found that women who declined to disclose their salary history received offers 1.8% lower than women who disclosed. Men who declined received offers 1.2% higher than men who answered. These historical findings do not establish today’s violation rate or prove why the differences occurred. They do illustrate an uneven negotiating landscape.

Women often pay a ‘social cost’ when they advocate for themselves in negotiation situations. Meanwhile, the workplace taboo around discussing pay can keep employees from discovering disparities. For most private-sector employees covered by the National Labor Relations Act, discussing wages with coworkers is a protected right. Employer rules prohibiting those conversations can violate federal law.

Before interviewing, check the relevant state or local labor agency’s guidance. If asked about past earnings, consider redirecting: 

“I’m targeting compensation that reflects this role’s responsibilities and my experience. What range have you budgeted?”

You can also say: “I’d prefer to focus on the requirements of this position and the value I would bring.”

Research comparable roles before naming a range. Avoid calculating your target by simply adding a percentage to a salary that may already undervalue you.

If you suspect a prohibited inquiry, save the application or email and document what was asked. A state or local enforcement agency can explain complaint options.

Employers also have work to do: establish pay ranges, train recruiters, and evaluate candidates consistently. Women should not have to choose between protecting their salary history and appearing “cooperative” enough to hire.