Salary has traditionally been the awkward mystery guest at the hiring party: everyone knows it is there, but nobody wants to mention it until the third interview. Massachusetts has changed that conversation. Under the Commonwealth’s pay transparency law, many employers must disclose realistic compensation ranges in job postings and provide range information to applicants and employees in specific situations.
Officially titled An Act Relative to Salary Range Transparency, the legislation was signed by Governor Maura Healey on July 31, 2024, as Chapter 141 of the Acts of 2024. Its workforce-reporting provisions began in 2025, while its salary range disclosure requirements took effect on October 29, 2025.
The law affects recruiting, promotions, transfers, compensation planning, remote work, and workforce data reporting. It is intended to reduce information gaps that can contribute to gender and racial pay disparities. It also gives employers a reason to organize compensation practices that may previously have lived in a spreadsheet named something reassuring like “Final_Salary_Bands_v12_REAL_FINAL.xlsx.”
What Is the Massachusetts Pay Transparency Act?
The Massachusetts Pay Transparency Act is a common shorthand for the state’s salary range transparency law. It amended Massachusetts employment law by creating two related sets of obligations:
- Pay range disclosure requirements for public and private employers with at least 25 Massachusetts employees.
- Workforce data reporting requirements for certain employers with at least 100 Massachusetts employees.
The first component gives job seekers and employees better access to compensation information. The second provides the Commonwealth with demographic workforce data that can be studied in aggregate to identify employment patterns and possible disparities.
These requirements complement the Massachusetts Equal Pay Act, which generally prohibits paying employees of different genders differently for comparable work unless the difference is supported by a permissible factor, such as seniority, merit, production, location, education, training, or relevant experience.
Which Employers Are Covered?
The 25-Employee Threshold
The salary range disclosure rules apply to public and private employers that had 25 or more employees whose primary place of work was in Massachusetts during the previous calendar year. An organization does not escape coverage simply because its headquarters are in another state.
Employers should calculate headcount annually by averaging the number of employees across their payroll periods for the preceding calendar year. Full-time, part-time, seasonal, and temporary employees count when Massachusetts is their primary place of work.
For most workers, the primary place of work is where they perform most of their duties. The analysis becomes more interesting for traveling and remote employees. A worker who lives outside Massachusetts but regularly telecommutes to a Massachusetts worksite may still have Massachusetts as the primary place of work. Employers should examine actual working arrangements instead of relying exclusively on a mailing address.
The 100-Employee Reporting Threshold
Separate reporting obligations generally apply to employers with at least 100 Massachusetts employees that are already required to file federal EEO reports. These employers submit copies of applicable EEO-1, EEO-3, EEO-4, or EEO-5 reports to the Secretary of the Commonwealth according to the statutory schedule.
The law does not currently force an employer to invent a new compensation dataset that the federal report does not contain. An employer may ordinarily submit the same EEO report filed federally, although it may choose to prepare a version limited to Massachusetts employees.
What Must Be Included in a Job Posting?
A covered employer must include the pay range for a particular position in internal and external job postings. This obligation also applies when a recruiter, staffing provider, or other third party advertises the job on the employer’s behalf. Outsourcing the posting does not outsource the legal responsibility.
The law defines a pay range as the annual salary range or hourly wage range the employer reasonably and in good faith expects to pay for the position at the time of posting. A compliant listing might state:
Expected base salary: $82,000 to $98,000 per year.
For an hourly role, it might say:
Hourly wage range: $24.50 to $29.00 per hour.
The range must reflect a genuine hiring expectation. A listing that advertises “$30,000 to $300,000, depending on vibes” may technically contain two numbers, but it is unlikely to demonstrate serious good-faith compensation planning.
Bonuses, Benefits, Commissions, and Piece Rates
The statutory definition focuses on annual salary or hourly wages. Employers are not generally required by this law to list bonuses, equity awards, retirement contributions, health insurance, paid leave, or other benefits. They may voluntarily include those details, and doing so can make a job advertisement more useful and competitive.
If compensation for a position is based on commissions or piece rates, however, Massachusetts guidance indicates that the expected commission or piece-rate range must be disclosed. Employers with mixed compensation structures should clearly distinguish base pay from commissions or other variable earnings.
When Must Pay Ranges Be Given to Employees and Applicants?
Job advertisements are only one part of the law. A covered employer must also provide compensation range information in several employment situations:
- An applicant may request the pay range for the position being sought.
- A current employee may request the range for the position that employee already holds, even when no vacancy exists.
- An employee offered a promotion must receive the range for the new position.
- An employee offered a transfer to a position with different responsibilities must receive the applicable range.
This means an employee does not need to begin a formal complaint or conduct an elaborate hallway investigation to learn the employer’s established range for the employee’s own job. A straightforward request is enough to trigger the disclosure requirement.
How Does the Law Apply to Remote Jobs?
Remote recruiting creates one of the law’s most important compliance questions. Massachusetts requirements cover positions whose primary place of work is or will be in the Commonwealth. State guidance also reaches roles that can be performed remotely to a Massachusetts worksite and remote workers whose primary place of work is Massachusetts.
Consider a company headquartered in New York that employs 40 people who primarily work in Massachusetts. If it advertises a fully remote accounting position that may be filled by a Massachusetts-based employee, the company should not assume it is outside the law merely because its corporate office sits across the state line.
Multistate employers should map where jobs can actually be performed and compare the rules of every relevant jurisdiction. Massachusetts, California, Colorado, New York, Washington, and other jurisdictions do not use identical definitions or disclosure standards. One national template can be efficient, but only if it satisfies the strictest applicable requirements.
Workforce Data Reporting Requirements
Covered large employers began submitting workforce reports to Massachusetts in 2025. EEO-1 filers generally report annually by February 1. Other report categories follow the schedules established for their corresponding EEO forms.
The reports contain workforce information organized by categories such as race, ethnicity, sex, and job classification. Individual company submissions are not treated as public records under the act. Instead, the Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development uses the information to publish an annual aggregated report by industry sector.
This distinction matters. The state’s objective is to identify broader labor-market patterns without publishing a searchable compensation dossier for every covered business. Employers must nevertheless handle the underlying reports carefully because they contain sensitive workforce information.
Employee and Applicant Protections
The act prohibits retaliation against applicants or employees who exercise their rights. Protected conduct includes requesting a pay range, making a complaint, participating in an investigation, and informing another person about rights under the law.
Retaliation can be obvious, such as firing an employee immediately after a complaint. It can also be subtler: removing responsibilities, denying opportunities, changing schedules, excluding someone from meetings, or suddenly documenting minor issues that were previously ignored.
Managers should therefore be trained not only to provide ranges but also to respond professionally. “Why do you want to know?” is not a useful opening move. A better answer is prompt, factual, documented, and free of unnecessary suspicion.
Enforcement, Penalties, and the Temporary Cure Period
The Massachusetts Attorney General has enforcement authority. The law does not create a separate private right of action under the salary transparency provisions, although applicants and employees may submit complaints to the Attorney General’s Civil Rights Division.
Potential consequences escalate with repeated offenses:
- A warning for the first offense.
- A fine of up to $500 for the second offense.
- A fine of up to $1,000 for the third offense.
- Higher penalties under Massachusetts law for fourth and subsequent offenses, potentially reaching $25,000 depending on the circumstances.
Until October 29, 2027, a covered employer that receives a Notice to Cure from the Attorney General generally has two business days to correct the identified defect before a fine is imposed. This temporary cure opportunity is not permission to ignore the law until a letter arrives. A missing range can still damage applicant trust, create administrative work, and draw regulatory attention.
Practical Compliance Steps for Employers
Build Defensible Compensation Ranges
Employers should establish a minimum and maximum for every position using reliable factors such as responsibilities, experience, skills, location, internal equity, and market data. They should document why each range is reasonable and periodically review it.
A range should be wide enough to account for legitimate differences among candidates but narrow enough to communicate something meaningful. If almost every candidate is offered below the posted minimum or above the maximum, the range is not functioning as a range. It is functioning as workplace fiction.
Audit Every Recruiting Channel
Review the company careers page, applicant-tracking system, internal opportunity board, social media advertisements, recruiter templates, and third-party job sites. Old listings may remain active or be automatically reposted, so employers need a process for correcting stale advertisements.
Contracts with recruiting agencies should require compliance with applicable pay transparency laws. Employers should also specify who approves ranges and who verifies that the correct range appears before publication.
Create a Request Procedure
Employees and applicants should have a simple way to request pay information. HR teams can use a standard response template, but the response must contain the current range for the specific position. Requests, answers, and changes to ranges should be documented consistently.
Conduct a Pay Equity Review
Publishing ranges can expose unexplained differences between current salaries and the amounts offered to new hires. Before that happens, employers should compare employees performing comparable work and investigate disparities that cannot be explained by lawful factors.
Because compensation analyses may uncover legal risk, employers should consider working with qualified employment counsel when structuring a privileged pay equity audit.
What the Law Means for Job Seekers and Employees
Applicants can use the posted range to decide whether an opportunity deserves their time. During negotiations, they can ask where their experience places them within the range and what objective criteria influence the final offer.
A posted maximum is not a guaranteed offer, just as a posted minimum should not automatically become the default. Employers may consider relevant experience, education, credentials, specialized skills, internal equity, and other lawful factors.
Current employees can request the range for their own position and compare it with their salary. Being below the midpoint does not automatically prove unlawful discrimination; the employee may be new to the role or developing required skills. Still, the information supports a more focused conversation about performance expectations, progression, and compensation.
Experience-Based Lessons from Pay Transparency Implementation
The most useful lessons often appear after a company moves from reading the law to applying it. The following illustrative situations show where organizations commonly encounter friction and how better practices can prevent it.
Experience One: The Range Exists, but Nobody Agrees on It
Imagine a Cambridge software company where finance budgets $120,000 for a product manager, HR approves a range of $105,000 to $130,000, and the hiring manager tells a recruiter that an exceptional candidate could receive $145,000. Each participant believes the range is “correct,” which is a charming arrangement until the advertisement must contain one defensible answer.
The practical lesson is that range approval needs an owner. HR, finance, and the hiring manager should resolve exceptions before a posting goes live. If $145,000 is genuinely available, the advertised maximum may need adjustment. If it is not available, recruiters should not casually promise it.
Experience Two: Transparency Reveals Salary Compression
Consider a Worcester manufacturer advertising technician roles at $31 to $36 per hour while experienced technicians already earn $30. Employees are likely to notice. The posting may satisfy disclosure rules, but it also reveals salary compression created by a competitive hiring market.
A thoughtful employer reviews incumbent pay before publishing the range, identifies employees whose compensation requires adjustment, and prepares managers to explain how progression works. Otherwise, a hiring compliance project can become a retention problem by lunchtime.
Experience Three: A Recruiter Uses an Old Template
A Boston health care organization gives its staffing partner an approved range, but the recruiter republishes last year’s advertisement without it. Because third-party recruiting is covered, “the agency made the mistake” is not a dependable compliance strategy.
Organizations can reduce this risk by requiring written approval of advertisements, periodically sampling live postings, and giving vendors updated templates. Automated alerts for postings that lack dollar amounts can also catch errors before applicants do.
Experience Four: A Remote Position Crosses State Lines
A national company advertises a remote analyst role and initially omits pay because its headquarters are in Florida. The job can be performed in Massachusetts, however, and the company already employs enough Massachusetts-based workers to meet the threshold.
The lesson is to classify a job by where the employee may work, not merely where executives receive mail. Employers with national recruiting programs often benefit from including a reasonable range in every U.S. posting, reducing the need to maintain a patchwork of nearly identical advertisements.
Experience Five: An Employee Makes a Simple Request
An employee asks for the range of her current position. Her supervisor interprets the request as a demand for a raise and becomes defensive. The conversation deteriorates even though the employee only asked for information the law allows her to receive.
Training changes this outcome. The manager can acknowledge the request, route it promptly to HR, provide the approved range, and schedule a separate discussion if the employee wants to talk about career progression. Keeping disclosure and negotiation distinct makes both conversations clearer.
Across these examples, the broader experience is consistent: compliance works best when pay ranges reflect real decisions. Transparent numbers cannot repair an incoherent compensation system, but they are remarkably good at revealing one.
Conclusion
The Massachusetts Pay Transparency Act has made compensation disclosure a routine part of employment in the Commonwealth. Since October 29, 2025, covered employers with at least 25 Massachusetts employees have been required to publish good-faith salary or hourly ranges and provide range information in specified applicant, employee, promotion, and transfer situations. Certain employers with at least 100 Massachusetts employees also face workforce data reporting obligations.
For workers, the law provides earlier access to information that can shape applications, negotiations, and career decisions. For employers, it creates a practical opportunity to improve salary structures, correct unexplained disparities, strengthen recruiting, and replace compensation guesswork with an organized system.
Note: This article provides general educational information and does not constitute legal advice. Requirements and official guidance may change, and employers should consult qualified Massachusetts employment counsel regarding specific circumstances.
