A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding in Article 1 of Chapter 3 of Title 40.1 a section numbered 40.1-28.7:12, relating to prohibiting employer seeking wage or salary history of prospective employees; wage or salary range transparency; cause of action.
HB1164 would add a new section to Virginia’s labor code prohibiting employers from asking job applicants for their prior wage or salary history, relying on that history when making hiring or pay decisions, or retaliating against applicants or employees who decline to provide it or who ask for a wage range. The bill also requires employers to disclose the wage or salary, or wage or salary range, in public and internal postings for jobs, promotions, transfers, and other employment opportunities, and it requires that any wage range be set in good faith.
The bill defines “wage or salary history” and “wage or salary range,” and it allows an applicant to voluntarily disclose prior pay after an initial offer has been made. If the applicant volunteers that information, the employer may use it only in limited circumstances and only if doing so does not create an unlawful pay differential under Virginia or federal equal pay law. The bill creates a private right of action for affected prospective employees or employees, with statutory damages of $1,000 to $10,000 or actual damages, plus attorney fees and other relief, and it allows individual, joint, or collective actions within two years of the prohibited conduct.
HB1164 would expand Virginia employment law by imposing statewide salary-history bans and pay-transparency requirements on employers. It would add new compliance obligations for job postings and hiring practices, and it would create enforceable remedies for applicants and employees who are denied opportunities or harmed by violations. The bill also interacts with existing equal pay protections in § 40.1-28.6 and federal law by limiting when voluntarily disclosed salary history may be used to justify higher pay.
The available context suggests generally favorable treatment of the bill in committee, as indicated by its incorporation into HB636 (Maldonado) by voice vote. No recorded floor votes or committee transcript excerpts are provided, so there is limited direct evidence of debate. Based on the bill’s structure, the measure appears aligned with broader pay-equity and transparency policy goals, which are typically supported as anti-discrimination and worker-protection reforms.
The main points of contention likely center on employer compliance burdens, the scope of required wage-range disclosures, and the potential for litigation through the private right of action. Employers may object to being barred from considering salary history and to the requirement that wage ranges be set in good faith, especially where ranges are broad or market conditions are uncertain. Supporters would likely emphasize pay equity, transparency, and reducing the perpetuation of historical wage disparities, while opponents may focus on administrative costs, flexibility in compensation decisions, and exposure to damages and attorney-fee claims.