HB 1619, titled the “Wage Fairness Act,” would prohibit both public employers and private employers, as well as employment agencies, from asking job applicants or employees for wage or salary history in most hiring, promotion, and employment decisions. It also requires employers to disclose the wage or wage range, plus a general description of benefits and other remuneration, in job advertisements and to provide current employees with their wage or wage range and benefits information at hiring, promotion, transfer, and at least annually thereafter.
The bill creates separate provisions for public employers under a new s. 112.0445, F.S., and for private employers under a new s. 448.112, F.S., while also amending existing wage-related definitions in chapter 448. It allows a limited exception for confirming wage history when a prospective employee voluntarily offers prior pay information to justify a higher compensation offer. Employers and employment agencies would have to keep records of wage ranges, benefits, and wage-rate history for at least two years after employment ends.
HB 1619 would also create enforcement mechanisms and remedies. For public employers and employment agencies, violations could be addressed through administrative review before the Public Employees Relations Commission, injunctive relief, civil penalties, and attorney fees in court. For private employers, an aggrieved employee could bring a civil action under existing retaliation procedures, with relief including injunctive relief, damages, civil penalties, and attorney fees. The bill is scheduled to take effect July 1, 2025.
The available legislative history shows no recorded votes or committee debate, and the bill died in the Industries & Professional Activities Subcommittee. That suggests the measure did not advance far enough to generate a documented floor or committee controversy in the provided materials. Based on the text alone, the bill appears aimed at pay transparency and limiting reliance on prior salary in compensation decisions, which is generally associated with efforts to reduce wage disparities.
The main points of potential contention are likely to be employer compliance burdens, the required disclosure of wage ranges and benefits, recordkeeping obligations, and the creation of new private and public enforcement remedies. Supporters would likely view the bill as a pay equity and transparency measure, while opponents may argue it imposes administrative costs and restricts employer discretion in hiring and compensation negotiations.
HB 1619 would add new statutory prohibitions and disclosure duties affecting public employers, private employers with ten or more employees, and employment agencies. It would create new sections in chapters 112 and 448 of the Florida Statutes, revise chapter 448 definitions, and establish enforcement through administrative proceedings, civil actions, penalties, injunctive relief, and attorney fees. The bill would directly affect hiring practices, salary negotiations, job postings, internal promotions/transfers, and employer recordkeeping requirements.
The bill’s apparent policy direction is pay transparency and wage fairness, and the text reflects a generally pro-worker, anti-salary-history stance. However, there is no committee transcript or vote record in the provided materials, so the actual discussion and level of support or opposition cannot be measured from the record here. Its failure to advance out of subcommittee indicates it did not secure enough legislative momentum to move forward.
Likely areas of contention include whether banning salary-history inquiries improves pay equity or instead complicates hiring and compensation decisions, whether mandatory wage-range disclosures are feasible for employers, and whether the recordkeeping and enforcement provisions create undue administrative and litigation burdens. Employers and employment agencies would be the primary affected parties on the compliance side, while employees and job applicants would be the primary beneficiaries of the transparency and anti-retaliation protections.