HB 6517 would amend Connecticut’s wage transparency law to require employers to disclose wage ranges and a general description of benefits in both public and internal job postings, with limited exceptions for employers that use alternative hiring methods instead of job advertisements. It also expands and clarifies employee rights around discussing wages, asking about coworkers’ wages when voluntarily disclosed, and being free from retaliation for exercising those rights. The bill defines “wage range” as a range set in good faith and allows it to be based on a pay scale, a previously determined range, comparable or equivalent positions, or the employer’s budgeted amount.
The bill further requires employers to provide wage-range and benefits information to applicants at the earliest of the applicant’s request or any compensation discussion/offer, and to provide the same information to employees at hiring, when their position changes, upon first request, and annually thereafter. It also prohibits employers from inquiring into a prospective employee’s wage and salary history unless the applicant voluntarily discloses it, while preserving the ability to ask about other compensation elements so long as the employer does not ask their value. Enforcement is through private civil action, with available remedies including statutory damages, compensatory damages, attorney’s fees, costs, punitive damages, and equitable relief, subject to a two-year limitations period.
If enacted, the bill would amend Section 31-40z of the general statutes and broaden the statute’s reach to positions performed in Connecticut and certain out-of-state positions that report to a Connecticut supervisor, office, or work site. It would strengthen existing pay-transparency and anti-retaliation protections for employees and applicants, and impose new disclosure obligations on employers in both the public and private sectors.
The overall sentiment reflected in the committee record appears favorable: the bill received a 9-4 vote to draft and then a 9-4 Joint Favorable vote in the Labor and Public Employees Committee. No transcript excerpts were provided, so there is no detailed record of floor discussion, but the committee vote pattern suggests majority support with a meaningful minority opposed.
The main points of contention likely center on employer compliance burdens, the scope of required disclosures, and the prohibition on salary-history inquiries. Opponents may view the annual disclosure requirement, internal posting mandate, and private right of action with damages as burdensome or litigation-prone, while supporters are likely focused on pay equity, transparency, and reducing wage discrimination.
The bill would revise Connecticut General Statutes Section 31-40z to expand pay-transparency requirements and employee wage-discussion protections. It would require wage ranges and benefits information in public and internal job postings, mandate disclosures to applicants and employees at specified times, prohibit salary-history inquiries except where voluntarily disclosed, and create or reinforce anti-retaliation protections. It also establishes a private enforcement mechanism with statutory and compensatory damages, attorney’s fees, punitive damages, and a two-year filing window, affecting employers, applicants, and employees statewide and in certain out-of-state jobs tied to Connecticut workplaces.
The committee voting history indicates generally positive sentiment toward the bill, with both recorded votes passing 9-4. That suggests a clear majority in support of expanding wage transparency and anti-retaliation protections, but also a consistent bloc of opposition. Because no committee transcript was provided, the record does not show detailed debate, but the vote margins imply the bill was viewed favorably by most members while still raising concerns for a substantial minority.
Likely areas of contention include whether employers should be required to disclose wage ranges and benefits in all job postings, whether annual wage-range disclosures are too burdensome, and whether the bill’s private right of action and damages provisions could encourage litigation. Another likely dispute is the ban on salary-history inquiries, which supporters see as a tool to reduce pay inequities but critics may view as limiting employer flexibility in hiring. The bill’s broad application to both public and private employers, and to certain out-of-state positions connected to Connecticut, may also be a point of concern for employers with multi-state operations.