Compensation practices are undergoing rapid change. At the forefront of one of these shifts are salary history bans, which have become an increasingly important factor in designing compensation programs. Since 2016, these bans have spread throughout the United States. By the end of 2025, 22 states, as well as Washington, DC, and Puerto Rico, will have enacted some version of a salary history ban. While the majority were implemented between 2017 and 2021, 2026 will bring a new global focus as E.U. Member States will also introduce more rigorous pay transparency regulations.
Once limited to a few early policy trials, pay transparency efforts have now developed into a worldwide movement. Recent research from Boston University School of Law offers concrete evidence on the impact of salary history bans, showing that such measures result in higher wages for job changers—in the U.S., this has been especially true for women and non-white employees—without negatively impacting others. These findings highlight the pressing need for HR and compensation leaders to recognize and respond to evolving labor market dynamics.
The Pay Gap That Won't Quit
Despite decades of progress, pay inequity persists. Pew Research reports that women today earn ~85 cents for every dollar men earn, and closer to 95 cents when you filter for younger workers. We analyzed the Pave data set and took the analysis a step further and conducted a role-adjusted analysis of the gender pay gap across employees in the same job family, job level, or location.
When these factors were accounted for, in the Pave dataset, we found that the role-adjusted gender pay gap for base salaries drops to 4%. In other words, women earn 96% of what men earn when performing the same job at the same level and location.
Analyzing role-adjusted gender pay gaps does not minimize their significance. Even small annual disparities can severely affect lifetime earnings and retirement savings, compounding over time.
This becomes especially true when you factor in equity compensation. The role-adjusted pay gap for equity is 16%. An adjusted pay gap of this scale suggests companies still have a lot of work to do to strengthen how new hire and ongoing (or refresh) equity awards are determined for women as their careers progress.
When a recruiter asks, "What's your current salary and equity?" they're doing more than just collecting information—they might be carrying forward pay discrimination from the past. If someone was paid less in a previous job because of bias, that lower salary can set the standard for what they're offered next, and the cycle continues. This means women and minorities, who often have lower past salaries due to discrimination, can see these pay gaps widen throughout their careers.
What Salary History Bans Actually Do
Salary history bans vary in scope and strength. Some apply only to public-sector employers, while others apply to private companies as well. Some prohibit asking about salary history but allow employers to use information if a candidate volunteers it. Others ban the practice entirely, at all stages of the hiring process.
These policies do more than ban a question—they reshape compensation conversations. After bans, salary postings in job ads nearly tripled.
Without salary history, employers lose a negotiation advantage, shifting hiring toward clear, standardized compensation: from 'What was your pay?' to 'Here's what this role pays.'
New Research Explores The Impact of Salary Bans
Research from Boston University School of Law highlights the effects of these policies: salary history bans lead to higher wage increases for job changers, especially for women and non-white workers, without reducing pay for others.
Job changers in areas with salary history bans see wage increases that are 4% higher than those of similar workers in areas without such bans. That's the overall impact. But when you break down the results by demographic group, the picture becomes even more striking.
Female job changers in ban jurisdictions gain 6.2% more in compensation, narrowing the wage gap by 43%. Non-white job changers see gains of 5.8%. And critically, these gains don't come at the expense of white male employees, who see no decrease in their compensation.
This last point deserves emphasis: Pay equity initiatives do not necessarily create a zero-sum game in which addressing historical inequities penalizes other groups. Research on salary history bans indicates that these policies generally raise overall compensation, especially for those previously disadvantaged.
What This Means for Your Compensation Strategy
If you're operating in a jurisdiction with a salary history ban, compliance isn't optional. But it's also not just about avoiding legal risk. It's about fundamentally rethinking how you approach compensation conversations.
Start by auditing your current practices. Where in your hiring process is salary history currently collected or used? It might be in places you haven't considered, like embedded in application forms, part of standard recruiter scripts, or referenced in offer justification documents. Here are some example audit questions for your review:
- Does your application form ask for previous salaries?
- Are there interview scripts or training materials that trigger hiring managers to inquire about salary history?
- How is compensation determined for offers? Is previous salary a factor considered in the decision process?
By understanding your current state, you can identify areas for improvement and ensure compliance with salary history bans.
Your recruiting and hiring teams need clear guidance on what they can't ask and, just as importantly, why these restrictions exist. Old habits can die hard, so compensation and talent acquisition leaders must take a proactive approach to change management. Train your people leaders to focus instead on "required salary" conversations—a legitimate way to understand candidate expectations that doesn't anchor to potentially discriminatory historical data.
Update your job postings to include salary ranges. Many newer bans actually require this, but even if yours doesn't, there's strategic value in transparency. Document your compensation philosophy and be prepared to justify offers without reference to what others made. The goal is to pay people for the value they'll bring to your organization, not to perpetuate what someone else paid them.
Should You Adopt These Practices Even Without a Ban?
Here's where it gets interesting for organizations not yet covered by these laws. Depending on your organization’s compliance strategy, you can adopt an approach that only complies in the specific states and jurisdictions where these laws apply. However, that patchwork of different policies can become a burden for both HR and the people leaders.
There are several reasons to consider voluntary adoption. First, it can signal an organizational commitment to pay equity in a talent market where workers increasingly care about these issues. Second, it can help reduce risk before possible legislation across the U.S. and the E.U. Third, if your competitors in overlapping labor markets have already adapted to bans in their locations, you may be competing at a disadvantage by clinging to the old approach.
Proactively adopting these practices lets you thoroughly prepare your compensation process and avoid rushed compliance later. This positions your organization to handle legal changes confidently and effectively.
In a recent Pave survey, we found that only 14.9% of companies post the full salary range (from minimum to maximum) in their job descriptions. The 243 companies that participated–mostly tech and life sciences companies, but this does provide insight into where the market is going.
- 31.9% of companies share a range from the minimum to the midpoint
- 31.2% disclose a range from minimum to somewhere between midpoint and maximum
- 14.9% provide the full range from minimum to maximum
- 22.0% report using bespoke "Range Penetration Percentiles" or other methods
While salary transparency laws require posting ranges, most companies interpret these requirements conservatively—perhaps to retain negotiating flexibility or manage candidate expectations. As a result, a gap remains between the spirit of transparency and actual practice.
{{mid-cta}}
Beyond Bans: Building a Comprehensive Approach
Salary history bans are increasingly seen as a legislative tool to address pay equity, but are not meant to be a complete solution. Organizations that hope to make progress on pay transparency and equity know that the most successful strategies combine salary ban compliance with broader initiatives to achieve true compensation fairness.
Many organizations are leveraging compensation benchmarking tools to set data-driven, equitable ranges that reflect what roles are actually worth in the current market, not just what you've paid people in the past. This is where platforms like Pave's market pricing tools become valuable—they ground your compensation decisions in current market data rather than potentially biased historical patterns.
Making It Operational
Theory is one thing; execution is another. Here's what implementation actually looks like in practice.
In the Shorter Term:
- Audit your current practices to identify where salary history appears in your hiring process
- Remove salary history fields from applications and intake forms
- Brief your recruiting team, hiring managers, and interview panels on the new approach and legal requirements
- Revise your offer letter templates to ensure justifications don't reference previous pay
- Update scripts and interview guides to eliminate prohibited questions
- Join Pave Data Lab to receive access to daily interactive analyses from our data science team and invitations to join weekly quick polls and monthly pulse surveys.
{{mid-cta}}
Longer Term Considerations:
- Salary posting strategy: Decide whether you'll proactively include ranges in job descriptions, even where not legally required
- Compensation band development: Create defensible, market-based compensation bands that you can articulate clearly to candidates
- Alternative assessment methods: Establish new approaches for evaluating candidate fit that don't rely on salary history
- Negotiation protocols: Standardize how offers are discussed internally and with candidates to ensure a consistent standard across roles
- Technology solutions: Leverage platforms like Pave's market data tools to ground your compensation decisions in current market conditions and Pave’s
Measuring Success:
- Track hiring metrics by demographic group before and after implementation
- Monitor offer acceptance rates—salary transparency often improves these
- Survey new hires about their perception of fairness in your compensation process
- Conduct regular pay equity analyses to ensure the impact persists over time
The Bigger Picture
The expansion of salary history bans goes beyond new compliance requirements. It reflects a fundamental shift in how we think about compensation and pay equity. Research from Boston University and others demonstrates that policy changes can improve wage outcomes, particularly for groups that have historically faced discrimination.
Looking to the future, trends in the U.S. and E.U. could continue to drive global pay practices, encouraging countries worldwide to increase transparency and fairness in compensation. HR leaders should stay informed about potential international policy changes and evolving standards, as well as the latest research evaluating established and innovative pay practices.
Learn more about pay equity: What is Pay Equity?
Charles is a member of Pave's marketing team, bringing nearly 20 years of experience in HR strategy and technology. Prior to Pave, he advised CHROs and other HR leaders at CEB (now Gartner's HR Practice), supported benefits research initiatives at Scoop Technologies, and, most recently, led SoFi's employee benefits business, SoFi at Work. A passionate advocate for talent innovation, Charles is known for championing data-driven HR solutions.
