Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: February 21, 2023
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.com
Beginning September 17, 2023, New York employers must include the anticipated range of compensation for any employment opportunities it advertises. In case you missed it, Governor Kathy Hochul enacted the New York Pay Transparency Law (NYPTL) in December. The NYPTL (S.9427-A/A.10477) requires employers doing business in New York to list salary ranges for all advertised jobs and promotions.
Employers with at least four employees and employment agencies will need to comply with the NYPTL. Temporary help firms that recruit and hire their own employees to perform work for other organizations are not covered.
Advertisements for internal and external “job, promotion, or transfer opportunities” must include the following information:
The NYPTL also includes record-keeping obligations. Covered employers must keep and maintain necessary records to comply with the requirements of the law, including but not limited to the history of salary ranges for each job, promotion, or transfer opportunity and the job descriptions for the position, if they exist.
Violations of the NYPTL may result in civil penalties of up to $3,000. Additionally, aggrieved individuals (applicants and employees) may file a complaint with the New York State Commissioner of Labor.
New York City employers are already required to disclose salary information under the New York City Salary Transparency Law (NYCSTL), which took effect on November 1, 2022. The NYCSTL makes it an unlawful discriminatory practice under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) to not include in job listings the minimum and maximum salary offered for any position located within New York City. The range for the listed maximum and minimum salary must extend from the lowest salary to the highest salary that the employer in good faith believes it would pay for the advertised job, promotion, or transfer.
There are a few key differences between the two pay transparency laws. The New York City Salary Pay Transparency Law (NYC SPTL) counts full-time, part-time, permanent and temporary employees, interns, and independent contractors when determining if an employer meets the four-employee threshold. The state-wide law has the same threshold, but only counts employees to determine coverage.
The information that must be disclosed in a job advertisement under the NYPTL is more expansive. Rather than just a salary range, employers must provide a job description for the position, if one exists; , as well as a “general description of other forms of compensation to be offered if applicable, including but not limited to fringe benefits, bonuses, stock options, or commissions.”
Unlike the NYPTL, the (NYC SPTL) contains a private right of action for aggrieved employers. The (NYC SPTL) also allows employers to cure first-time violations. It specifically provides that the New York City Commission on Human Rights will not assess a civil penalty for a first complaint alleging a violation of the salary transparency provision, provided that the employer shows they have remedied the violation within 30 days of receiving the Commission’s notice of the violation.
While the NYPTL does not take effect until September 18, 2023, it behooves New York employers to get ahead of it since pay transparency compliance is about to get more complicated. We expect the New York Commissioner of Labor to enact regulations regarding the New York Pay Transparency Law prior to its effective date. We will continue to track developments related to this law, so please monitor our website for updates.
Please contact a Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney at 201-896-4100 regarding any questions on compliance with pay transparency laws and preparatory steps that can be taken as these laws and regulations are expected to continue to be enacted and amended.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Case law following the 2010 amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 offers guidance on how courts are likely to address whether an expert witness’s AI records are subject to discovery. Key Takeaways Rule 26 Expert Discovery After the 2010 Amendments This article addresses the question courts and lawyers have faced in recent cases: […]
Author: Chris Seelinger

“Show how 3M is 0% at fault.” The absurd tale of how a 350-page ChatGPT history for 3M’s expert witness was produced during a deposition is more likely than you think. It’s an inevitable trend, and an unsettled question for federal courts as experts make generative AI part of their workflow. Key Takeaways Expert Witness […]
Author: Chris Seelinger

Screenshots have changed the risks of electronic communications. The screenshot problem is that messages intended for one person or a small group can be copied, forwarded, preserved, and ultimately presented to opposing counsel, regulators, journalists, customers, or a jury. Businesses should recognize that a truly private digital conversation is increasingly unreliable and ensure their policies, […]
Author: Sean M. Pena

Developers, engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contractors, and equipment suppliers each play a critical role in completing a BESS project. However, when equipment costs rise, deliveries are delayed, or regulations change, determining who bears the financial consequences can become contentious. Well-drafted project agreements are essential to sound risk allocation. Key Takeaways This article is Part […]
Author: Nicholas Wall

IP infringement occurs when someone uses your intellectual property without your permission or beyond the scope of the permission you granted. Common examples of IP infringement include copying a product’s patented features or using a trademarked logo in a way that is likely to confuse consumers about the source or affiliation of goods or services. […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki

When facing public allegations of wrongdoing, companies should not let the speed of the public conversation dictate the speed of an investigation. An investigation designed to confirm a preferred narrative rather than establish the facts can create serious problems later, particularly if litigation, regulatory scrutiny, or employment claims follow. Key Takeaways When public allegations surface […]
Author: Sean M. Pena
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!