Blog

 
     

Hawaii Bans Employers from Asking about Salary History

By Michael Klazema on 7/26/2018

On July 5, 2018, Governor David Y. Ige signed Senate Bill 2351 which prohibits Hawaii employers from asking job applicants about their salary history. The new act’s effective date is January 1, 2019, and covers all employers that have at least one employee in that state.

Under new Section 2 of Chapter 378 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, an employer cannot:

  • Inquire about the salary history of an applicant for employment; or
  • Rely on the salary history of an applicant in determining the salary, benefits, or other compensation for the applicant during the hiring process, including the negotiation of an employment contract.

Employers can discuss with the applicant any objective measures of the applicant’s productivity, such as revenue, sales, or other production reports and pay expectations for the job. If the applicant voluntarily and without prompting disclosure of their salary history, the employer may rely on the disclosed salary history information in determining the salary for the applicant and can verify that information.

In addition, the act provides that if the employer performs a background check to verify non-salary related information and the results incidentally disclose the applicant’s salary history, the information cannot be “relied upon during the hiring process for purposes of determining the salary, benefits, or other compensation of the applicant, including the negotiation of an employment contract.”

What This Means to You:

  • This act applies to all employers in Hawaii and will go into effect on January 1, 2019.
  • Employers may not seek compensation history information from job applicants.
  • Employers may rely on the compensation history of the job applicant only when the applicant voluntarily discloses their wage history.
  • Employers can discuss with the applicant the pay expectations or any objective measures of the applicant’s productivity.

The new act is accessible here for review:
https://legiscan.com/HI/text/SB2351/2018


Tag Cloud
Categories
Recent Posts

Latest News

  • November 20 The #MeToo movement is bringing about legislative changes employers need to know about. We review some of the laws recently passed in California.
  • November 15

    Replacing an inconsistent array of procedures, Ontario's government has passed into law a reform act intended to clarify how police departments should handle requests for information to be used in background checks. 


  • November 14 The federal government has vowed to cut its backlog of security clearance background checks in half by spring. Currently, the backlog is approximately 600,000 names strong.
  • November 08 A Texas-based company was found to be supplying landlords with inaccurate background check results, potentially affecting housing decisions. The company must pay a record-setting settlement.
  • November 07 Orange Leaf Frozen Yogurt brand trusts backgroundchecks.com to perform the crucial function of background checks on job candidates before extending offers of employment.
  • November 06 The man previously responsible for running background checks on New York City’s school bus drivers says the city’s Department of Education has been pushing back against more thorough checks. The DOE reportedly circumnavigated proper bus driver vetting channels for most of the spring and summer this year.
  • November 06 If you have a series of speeding tickets or other traffic violations, do you need to disclose them as criminal history?
  • November 01 South Carolina's legislature recently adopted a measure to expand access to expungement opportunities for the state's ex-convicts, but other gaps in the process remain. Advocates disagree on how to address the problem to protect offenders as well as the public.
  • October 31 Background checks will show different things depending on the type of check. Here are a few ways employers can use background checks to learn about candidates.
  • October 30 The Pentagon recently disclosed a breach that exposed the personal information of roughly 30,000 personnel. The government blamed the breach on a contractor, calling into question background check policies for federal government vendors.