NWLC Files Amicus Brief In Support of Job Applicants’ Right to Pay Range Transparency

On December 30, 2024, NWLC and the Washington Employment Lawyers Association (WELA) submitted an amicus brief on behalf of themselves and three other organizations to the Washington Supreme Court in Branson et al. v. Washington Fine Wines & Spirits. The state of Washington has a pay range transparency law that requires employers to include pay information in job postings and gives job applicants the right to file an administrative complaint with a state agency or a lawsuit in court if an employer fails to comply. In Branson, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington asked the Washington Supreme Court to answer the following question: “What must a Plaintiff prove to be deemed a ‘job applicant’ within the meaning of [Washington’s pay transparency law]?  For example, must they prove that they are a ‘bona fide’ applicant?” The amicus brief argues that the Washington Supreme Court should reject the defendant’s attempt to deviate from the statute by requiring plaintiffs to prove that they are a “bona fide applicant” before they can seek relief.

As the brief describes, the Washington legislature enacted its pay range transparency law to help address gender and racial pay inequity by correcting the imbalance in information and bargaining power between employers and job applicants and by prompting employers to examine their compensation practices to ensure fair pay. We argue that the defendant’s proposed “bona fide applicant” requirement contravenes not only the statute’s language but its broader purpose, which fits comfortably within Washington’s history of liberal interpretation of labor and employment statutes. The brief also explains the ways in which pay range transparency helps counteract biases that disadvantage women and minorities in the job market. Finally, the brief notes, the proposed “bona fide applicant” requirement would introduce potential loopholes and compliance disincentives for employers, which was not the legislature’s intent in crafting and passing a broadly worded pay transparency law.