Salary history bans prohibit employers from asking about or relying on a candidate's previous pay, and they exist in many states and cities though not federally. Where one applies, you are not obliged to answer and the employer should not be asking. The practical skill is redirecting without friction: ask what has been budgeted for the role, and give an expectation figure for the job rather than a history figure about yourself.
What these laws typically prohibit
The core prohibition is on asking a candidate about their current or previous compensation, and on relying on that information to set pay. Many also prohibit seeking the information from a previous employer or from a background check, which closes the obvious route around the first restriction. Without that second limb, an employer could simply stop asking candidates and start asking references, which is what happened in the earliest versions.
Coverage varies between jurisdictions in ways that matter a great deal. Some laws bind all employers, some only those above a size threshold, and some apply only to public-sector employers. Several cities have ordinances stricter than their state, and a handful of states have preempted cities from legislating at all — the same pattern that runs through minimum wage law.
The exception that appears in most versions concerns voluntary disclosure. Where a candidate offers their salary history without being prompted, many laws permit the employer to consider it, and some permit them to verify it. That exception is the reason the practical advice below is not simply to refuse when asked, and it is why volunteering the figure to seem cooperative is the one move worth avoiding.
Why they exist
The argument is mechanical rather than ideological. If pay differences already exist in a labor market, then setting each new salary from the previous one carries those differences forward into every subsequent job. Somebody underpaid once is underpaid at a compounding rate for the rest of their career, and no employer along the way has to make a discriminatory decision for that to happen.
That mechanism is why salary history bans and equal pay reform arrived together in most jurisdictions. Prior pay was the most common justification employers offered under the “factor other than sex” defense, and closing it required both prohibiting the question and excluding the answer from the permitted factors. Doing only one of the two leaves the practice intact, which is why jurisdictions that legislated in stages saw little change until the second piece arrived.
Whether the bans have changed pay levels is genuinely contested and the research is still arriving. What is not contested is the mechanism they were designed to interrupt, and that mechanism is easy to verify against your own career if you have ever accepted an offer calculated as a percentage above your last one. That calculation is extremely common, it feels entirely reasonable to everybody involved, and it is precisely the thing these laws exist to interrupt.
How to answer when you are asked anyway
Assume you will be asked, because recruiters working across multiple states frequently do not know which rules apply where, and the question is often asked from habit rather than strategy. Treating it as an attack produces friction in a conversation you want to go well. A prepared redirect costs you nothing and keeps the tone intact, which matters because the person asking is usually not the person who decides your offer.
The first move is to redirect to the range. “What has been budgeted for this role?” is a completely natural response to a question about money, it puts the number where it belongs — on the job rather than on your history — and in a growing number of places the employer is obliged to answer it anyway. So the redirect is not merely a deflection — it is a question you may well have a legal right to have answered.
The second is to give an expectation rather than a history. “I’m looking for something in the region of X for a role at this level” answers the underlying question, which is whether you and the employer are in the same territory, without disclosing anything about what you were paid before. You are entitled to name a number; the point is that it should be a number about the role.
The third is simply not to volunteer it, including when the conversation is going well and disclosure feels like candor. The voluntary-disclosure exception in most of these laws means an offered figure can lawfully be used, so the protection you have is one you can waive simply by being forthcoming. That asymmetry is worth holding in mind during a friendly conversation, because friendliness is exactly the condition under which people volunteer things.
If you have already given it
It happens, particularly early in a process or on an application form that asked before anybody thought about it. Application forms are frequently years old and were built when the question was lawful everywhere, which is why the field survives in places it should not. It is not fatal and it is worth knowing what your position actually is.
Where the employer asked in a jurisdiction with a ban, the asking was itself the violation and your having answered does not cure it. The violation attaches to the asking rather than to your response, so answering under pressure does not put you in the wrong. Where you volunteered it unprompted, many laws permit reliance, and the practical remedy is to anchor the later conversation on the role rather than on that figure — “that was for a narrower role; for this scope I’m looking at X” is a normal thing to say and it re-centers the discussion.
Where this matters most
The bans matter most to anybody whose last salary was unrepresentative of their current market value. Somebody returning after a career break, changing industry, moving from a low-paying region, or leaving a job they took under pressure all have a previous figure that would drag a new offer downward for reasons unrelated to the work.
They matter least to somebody whose last salary was already at market, which is worth saying because the debate is often conducted as though the question were harmful to everybody. It is not; it is harmful to people whose history understates them, and those people are disproportionately the ones any equal pay policy is aimed at. That is the whole design: the question is harmless to people whose history reflects their value and costly to people whose history does not. Which also explains why opposition to these laws rarely comes from candidates.
What to do before an interview
Look up whether your state or city has a ban, so you know whether the question is merely awkward or actually unlawful where you are. That changes nothing about how you answer it and quite a lot about how you feel while answering, which is worth having settled in advance. Then decide your expectation figure in advance from published data — the percentile range for your occupation in your metro, and posted ranges for comparable roles in a jurisdiction that requires them.
Having that number ready is what makes the redirect easy. The reason people answer the salary history question is rarely that they feel obliged; it is that they were asked about money and had nothing else prepared to say. Preparation is the whole defense here, and it takes ten minutes with published percentile data before the first call.
This is general information about how these laws work rather than legal advice about your situation. Coverage, exceptions and enforcement vary substantially by state and city and change regularly, so your state labor agency has the current position and will answer a question without any obligation to file anything.
Common questions
What do salary history bans prohibit?
Asking a candidate about current or previous pay, and relying on it to set pay. Many also prohibit seeking it from a previous employer or a background check.
Is there a federal ban?
No. These are state and city laws, with coverage varying by employer size and sector, and a handful of states preempting cities from legislating at all.
What is the voluntary disclosure exception?
Where a candidate offers the figure unprompted, many laws permit the employer to consider it. That is why volunteering it to seem cooperative is the move worth avoiding.
Why do these laws exist?
Because setting each new salary from the previous one carries existing differences forward. Somebody underpaid once stays underpaid at a compounding rate without any employer making a discriminatory decision.
How should I answer if asked anyway?
Redirect to the range — 'what has been budgeted for this role?' — then give an expectation figure for the job rather than a history figure about yourself.
Am I allowed to name a number?
Yes. You are entitled to state what you are looking for. The point is that it should be a number about the role rather than about what you were paid before.
What if I already gave my salary history?
Not fatal. If they asked where a ban applies, the asking was the violation and your answering does not cure it. Re-center the conversation on the role and scope.
Who benefits most from these bans?
Anybody whose last salary was unrepresentative — after a career break, an industry change, a move from a low-paying region, or a job taken under pressure.