Remote work and pay transparency law create a compliance puzzle that catches many employers off guard: when a job can be performed from anywhere in the United States, which state's pay transparency requirements apply? The answer is both simple and expansive — all of them, for every jurisdiction where a candidate could reasonably live and apply.
The legal principle: "could be performed" coverage
Most active pay transparency laws use language like "could be performed, in whole or in part, in [state]" or "work that is to be performed in the state." This language was deliberately written to be broad. The intent, confirmed by enforcement guidance from multiple state agencies, is to prevent employers from posting remote roles without salary ranges on the grounds that the employer isn't physically present in the jurisdiction.
Practically, this means: a company headquartered in Texas posting a "Remote — US" software engineering role is subject to California's law (any California resident could apply), Colorado's law, New York City's law, Washington's law, Illinois's law, New Jersey's law, and every other active jurisdiction where a US resident might live. All simultaneously, for every remote posting.
Why geographic exclusions don't work
The most common attempted workaround is geographic exclusion language: "This role is not available to residents of California, Colorado, or New York City." This approach has been scrutinised by multiple state agencies and is increasingly untenable for three reasons.
Legal risk from anti-discrimination provisions. California's Civil Rights Department and Colorado's CDLE have both issued guidance suggesting that excluding state residents specifically to avoid pay disclosure obligations may itself violate anti-discrimination provisions. The argument: if you'd hire a Colorado resident for the role, refusing to accept applications from Colorado residents is discriminatory.
Talent acquisition cost. Colorado alone has over 180,000 technology workers. Excluding Colorado residents from a remote engineering role to avoid salary disclosure costs you access to a significant talent pool. The same logic applies to California (the largest US tech workforce), New York, and Washington.
Operational complexity. Managing state-by-state exclusion lists as new laws pass requires constant monitoring and updating of every job posting. The operational overhead exceeds the cost of simply disclosing salary ranges.
The universal disclosure solution
The practical solution is straightforward: include salary ranges, benefits descriptions, and bonus information on every job posting, regardless of location. This is the only approach that simultaneously satisfies all active state laws and positions you for future legislation.
To build a universally compliant posting, you need to satisfy Colorado and Washington — the two most demanding active states. Both require:
- Salary range (minimum and maximum)
- Benefits description (specific, not "competitive")
- Bonus and commission disclosure
A posting that satisfies these requirements automatically satisfies every other active US state law. See our salary range best practices guide for a complete posting template.
Multi-state employers with physical offices
For employers with physical offices in multiple states, remote work adds a layer of complexity: a role posted as "hybrid — NYC office required, with remote flexibility" may be covered by NYC's Local Law 32 (if the role involves NYC work) and Washington's law (if any Washington-based employee could be hired into this role). The hybrid designation doesn't reduce compliance obligations — it often increases them.
The practical guidance: treat any role with remote flexibility as a remote role for compliance purposes. If a candidate could perform the role without being physically present in the office, assume all active state laws apply.
International remote roles
For roles posted globally or specifically in EU member states, the EU Pay Transparency Directive adds salary disclosure requirements and bans on salary history questions. A global "Remote — Worldwide" posting is subject to EU requirements for EU resident candidates. The Directive's requirements overlap significantly with US state law requirements (both require salary range disclosure), with the EU adding a salary history ban that some US states also have (California, New York, Colorado, and others).
The cleanest approach for globally posted remote roles: use a universal template that satisfies US state law + EU Directive simultaneously. This is achievable with a single posting format. See our EU Directive guide for specific requirements.
ATS and job board syndication for remote roles
A common gap: employers post compliant remote role descriptions on their careers page, but their ATS doesn't carry the salary data through to syndicated job board postings. This is particularly common with older ATS platforms. The result is a compliant careers page post and non-compliant LinkedIn, Indeed, and Glassdoor postings — which are the ones that actually reach most candidates.
Verify that your ATS carries salary ranges through to all syndicated postings. Greenhouse, Lever, and Ashby have native salary transparency fields that syndicate properly. Workday and several legacy platforms require manual configuration or middleware. See our recruitment marketing compliance guide for a full breakdown of syndication gaps by platform.
Building a remote work compliance process
For employers with significant remote workforces, the compliance process needs to account for the dynamic nature of remote hiring. People move states after being hired, creating retroactive compliance questions. New states pass laws, changing the requirements for existing remote postings. Here's a practical framework:
- Universal posting template: A single template that satisfies all active US and EU requirements, applied to every posting regardless of location designation
- Quarterly posting audit: Review all active postings against a current list of active pay transparency laws, updating any that no longer comply due to law changes
- Ongoing monitoring: Subscribe to regulatory updates from key state agencies (CDLE, DCWP, DFEH, NJDOL) or use an automated monitoring service
- ATS configuration review: Verify annually that your ATS is syndicating salary data correctly to all job board integrations
