Washington: Broad Interpretation of “Applicant” for Purposes of Pay Transparency Violations
|
APPLIES TO All Employers with Applicants in WA |
EFFECTIVE September 4, 2025 |
QUESTIONS? Contact HR On-Call |
Quick Look
|
Discussion
On September 4, 2025, in Branson v. Washington Fine Wine & Spirits LLC, the Washington Supreme Court ruled any individual applying to a job posting that does not comply with the pay transparency requirements of Washington’s Equal Pay and Opportunities Act (EPOA) is entitled to seek damages under the law. This is regardless of whether the individual actually intended to seek employment with the employer. Here, the plaintiff applicants applied for retail positions with the defendant and the job postings did not contain the required pay scale information. One applicant interviewed for the position and discussed pay but did not accept the position offered. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a class action. The defendants argued that the statute only applied to “bona fide” applicants.
In reaching its ruling, the court relied on a dictionary definition of applicant as “one who applies for something.” The Court argued that if the legislature intended to limit who was an applicant, it would have done so. Originally, the law provided remedies to “individuals” before it was amended to applicants and employees. In addition, no further limiting words like “bona fide” were included. The court argued that if the legislature intended to limit who was entitled to remedies, it would need to amend the law to add the restriction.
Employers in Washington were already facing a surge of class action lawsuits alleging violations of the pay transparency requirements of the EPOA, and this ruling certainly does not limit who is eligible to file a claim. The dissent noted that this ruling gives “bounty seekers an incentive to trawl the internet for noncompliant job postings to obtain a statutory damages award unrelated to any personal harm.” Although the legislature did act over the summer to amend the EPOA to allow employers some added protections, like including a period of time to correct a deficient posting, it remains to be seen whether future amendments are on the table to restrict the definition of applicant.
Action Items
- Review and revise job postings for compliance with pay transparency requirements.
- Have appropriate personnel trained on the requirements.
- Consult with legal counsel on claims of pay transparency violations.
Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2025 ManagEase