California SB 642, effective January 1, 2026, redefines “pay scale” as a “good faith estimate” of what an employer “reasonably expects to pay for the position upon hire.” That single wording change closes the loophole employers used to post low anchor ranges and negotiate up later. It also expands “wages” to include bonuses, equity, benefits and allowances, and sets a three-year statute of limitations on Equal Pay Act claims regardless of intent. Employers still posting ranges built around future-negotiated pay are already out of compliance.
Pay transparency laws have existed in California since 2023, but SB 642 is the first amendment that directly targets how employers were gaming the original rule. Two years of enforcement experience showed regulators a consistent pattern: employers posted technically compliant ranges that bore no relationship to what anyone was actually paid. SB 642 closes that gap by changing the legal definition of the range itself, not just the disclosure requirement around it.
What does SB 642 actually change about pay scales?
SB 642 redefines “pay scale” as a good faith estimate of the salary or hourly wage range an employer reasonably expects to pay for the position upon hire, replacing the older, looser standard that allowed aspirational or negotiation-anchored ranges.
Under the prior language, an employer could post “$70,000–$120,000” for a role it expected to fill at $75,000, using the wide band as a negotiating tool rather than an honest estimate. SB 642 makes that practice a compliance violation, because the range must now reflect what the employer genuinely expects to pay at the moment of hire, not a theoretical outer bound.
Why do the words “good faith estimate” and “upon hire” matter?
Both phrases are new additions to the statute, and both narrow employer discretion: “good faith estimate” imports an objective reasonableness standard, while “upon hire” anchors the range to the actual hiring moment rather than a hypothetical future point after negotiation or tenure growth.
Employment counsel reviewing SB 642 have flagged “upon hire” as the more consequential phrase in practice, because it forecloses a common defense — that a wide range reflected pay progression over years rather than starting compensation. Under the amended law, that defense no longer applies to the initial posted range.
Which forms of compensation now count as “wages” under the expanded definition?
SB 642 expands the statutory definition of “wages” to cover nearly all forms of compensation an employee can reasonably expect, including bonuses, equity, benefits, allowances and reimbursements, not just base salary or hourly rate.
This matters most for roles where variable pay is a large share of total compensation — sales, executive and technical roles with equity grants. A posted base-salary range that omits an expected signing bonus, standard equity grant or car allowance is no longer sufficient on its own; the good-faith estimate now needs to account for the full package an employer expects to offer at hire.
What can no longer appear in a compliant pay range?
Ranges that reflect only future negotiated pay, that omit expected bonus or incentive components, or that are set deliberately wide as a negotiating buffer rather than a genuine estimate, are the three patterns most likely to draw scrutiny under the amended law.
Employers should also review internal job architecture documents against what is posted externally. A mismatch between the internal compensation band used to make offers and the external posted range is exactly the kind of evidence a plaintiff’s attorney would use to argue the posted range was not a good-faith estimate.
How does the new three-year statute of limitations change litigation risk?
SB 642 establishes a statute of limitations of three years after the last date of an alleged violation for Equal Pay Act claims, applying regardless of whether the violation was willful.
Removing the willfulness distinction is significant: previously, a longer limitations period generally required a plaintiff to show intent. Under SB 642, an employer with a genuinely inadvertent pay-scale error faces the same three-year exposure window as one that knowingly posted a misleading range. That raises the practical value of documenting the good-faith basis for every posted range at the time it is created, not reconstructing it after a complaint is filed.
What penalties or claims can result from a non-compliant range?
A pay-scale violation under California’s transparency law can trigger a Civil Rights Department complaint, a civil penalty, and — because SB 642 folds the “wages” definition into the Equal Pay Act — potential private Equal Pay Act claims seeking back pay and damages.
The exposure compounds when a single non-compliant range is used across many job postings for the same role. Regulators and plaintiffs’ attorneys have both signaled that a template range copied across dozens of open requisitions is treated as a pattern, not an isolated error, which increases both the number of affected applicants and the aggregate damages calculation in a private suit.
How does SB 642 relate to SB 464 and California’s broader pay-data reporting rules?
SB 642 tightens the definition of what a compliant pay scale is, while companion 2026 legislation such as SB 464 extends California’s separate pay-data reporting obligations; together they push California employers toward pay ranges and pay-data filings that must actually reconcile with each other.
For multi-state employers, this is the detail worth flagging to legal and compensation teams together: pay-scale postings, pay-data reports and internal compensation bands are increasingly cross-referenced by regulators and plaintiffs’ counsel. A range that looks reasonable in a job posting but conflicts with the pay-data report filed for the same role and location creates exactly the kind of inconsistency SB 642’s good-faith standard was designed to catch.
What should employers do before the compliance deadline?
SB 642 took effect January 1, 2026, so employers still using pre-amendment pay ranges are already out of compliance and should prioritize an immediate audit rather than waiting for a future deadline.
A practical remediation sequence: audit every currently posted range against actual hiring-manager offer intent; expand each range’s underlying calculation to include bonus, equity and allowance components where those are standard for the role; document, in writing, the basis for each range at the time it is set; and align posted ranges with whatever figures are being reported in pay-data filings for the same job categories and locations.
How does California’s approach compare to other 2026 transparency laws?
California’s SB 642 sits inside a broader 2026 transparency wave that includes New York’s ban on ghost job postings and pay-scale laws in several other states, all converging on the same principle: a posted number must reflect a real, current hiring intention.
Multi-state employers should treat SB 642 as a preview of where other states are likely to move next, since California pay-transparency amendments have historically been followed by similar language in New York, Colorado and Washington within one to two legislative cycles.
Frequently Asked Questions
When did California SB 642 take effect?
SB 642 took effect on January 1, 2026, amending California’s existing pay transparency and Equal Pay Act provisions.
Does a posted salary range need to include bonuses and equity?
Yes. SB 642 expands the definition of “wages” to include nearly all compensation forms an employee can reasonably expect, including bonuses, equity, benefits, allowances and reimbursements, so a good-faith range should reflect the full expected package.
Can an employer still post a wide salary range to leave room for negotiation?
Not if the range does not reflect a genuine good-faith estimate of what the employer expects to pay upon hire. A wide range used purely as a negotiating buffer is inconsistent with SB 642’s “good faith estimate… upon hire” standard.
How long do employees have to bring an Equal Pay Act claim under the new law?
SB 642 sets a three-year statute of limitations from the last date of the alleged violation, and this period applies regardless of whether the violation was willful.
Does SB 642 apply outside California?
SB 642 itself applies to positions that may be filled in California, including remote roles open to California-based applicants, but it does not directly govern postings for roles with no California nexus. Multi-state employers should still expect similar rules to spread to other states.
Last updated: August 5, 2026. This article summarizes publicly available legal-alert guidance on SB 642 and does not constitute legal advice; employers should confirm specific compliance obligations with employment counsel.
Written by the Kurums HR Desk, covering compensation, compliance and talent strategy for people leaders. Related reading: Ghost Job Postings Are Now Illegal in New York, HR Trends 2026 Workplace: Flexibility, AI Managers, and Compliance Pressure Reshape HR, and the HR Department Hub for more compensation and compliance guides.
Discover more from Kurums | Business Intelligence
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
