Facebook-f Linkedin-in
(800) 679-2760

News & Events

What’s New

BOP NEWSLETTER • December 2025

Washington Supreme Court Expands Who Can Sue Under Pay Transparency Law

On September 4, 2025, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled that anyone who applies to a specific job posting can sue if the employer fails to include required pay information—no need to prove they were a “good-faith” or “bona fide” applicant. The case, Branson v. Washington Fine Wine & Spirits, arose from a class action over job ads missing salary ranges.

Key Points

  • Applicants can bring claims simply by submitting a formal application—intent doesn’t matter.
  • Washington’s pay transparency law requires employers to list salary ranges, wage scales, and benefits in all job postings.
  • Hundreds of similar class actions have been filed, each seeking $5,000 per applicant.

The court’s 6–3 majority emphasized the ordinary meaning of “job applicant,” while the dissent warned that the decision could expose employers to “nearly limitless” liability for a single noncompliant posting.

What Employers Should Do

  • Review all current and future job ads to ensure pay information is included.
  • Note that Washington recently updated the law to allow a five-day cure period after receiving notice of a noncompliant posting.
  • Consider adding a line in job postings with an email address for applicants to report issues so notices reach the right person.
California Bans Most “Stay-or-Pay” Agreements

California Governor Gavin Newson signed AB 692 into law, a bill that bans many “stay-or-pay” contracts—especially training repayment agreements—as part of the state’s continued focus on employee mobility. The law will apply to contracts entered on or after January 1, 2026, and will allow workers to file private lawsuits and seek civil penalties.

What’s Banned
AB 692 prohibits employers from requiring contracts that:

  • Make workers repay a debt if they leave employment,
  • Allow employers or debt collectors to resume collection if employment ends, or
  • Impose penalties, fees, or costs tied to separation.

Key terms like “worker” and “penalty, fee, or cost” are broadly defined, capturing many repayment-style arrangements.

What’s Still Allowed
Two major exceptions remain:

  1. Tuition Reimbursement for Transferable Credentials
    Permitted if:
  • It’s offered in a separate agreement,
  • Not required as a condition of employment,
  • Repayment is capped at the employer’s actual cost,
  • Repayment is prorated and non-accelerated, and
  • No repayment is required unless the employee was terminated for misconduct.
  1. Retention Bonus Repayment Agreements
    Still allowed if the agreement:
  • Is separate from the employment contract,
  • Gives employees at least 5 business days to consult an attorney,
  • Uses prorated, interest-free repayment over a period of no more than two years,
  • Lets employees defer the bonus until the retention period ends, and
  • Requires repayment only if the employee leaves voluntarily or is terminated for misconduct.

Penalties
Starting January 1, 2026, workers can sue for violations and may recover actual damages or $5,000 minimum, plus attorneys’ fees and injunctive relief.

What Employers Should Do Now

  • Keep current agreements as-is; the law applies only to contracts entered on or after Jan. 1, 2026.
  • Finalize any noncompliant agreements before that date.
  • Work with legal counsel to draft new, compliant tuition and retention bonus agreements.
  • Strengthen trade secret, confidentiality, and other protective policies as California continues to restrict traditional contract tools.
Browse

Let us answer your HR compliance questions.

Contact Us
Join Our Newsletter
Subscribe