Quick Hits
- The NJDOL proposes capping the difference between a posted range’s maximum and minimum at 60 percent of the minimum.
- The 60 percent cap was the most striking feature of the September 2025 proposed regulations. No other jurisdiction currently limits the size of an employer’s posted pay range beyond requiring a good faith estimate.
- The NJDOL’s FAQs also remove reference to the cap.
- New Jersey’s pay transparency statute took effect June 1, 2025.
The NJDOL took this step in direct response to public comments from employer and industry groups. Written comments on the notice are due December 18, 2026.
Background
New Jersey’s pay transparency law, N.J.S.A. 34:6B-23, took effect June 1, 2025. It has two main requirements. First, employers must disclose pay and benefits information in postings for new jobs and transfer opportunities. Second, employers must make reasonable efforts to notify current employees in the affected department(s) of promotional opportunities before making a promotion decision.
On September 15, 2025, the NJDOL published proposed implementing regulations. The comment period closed November 14, 2025. Under the proposed regulations, when an employer chose to post a range rather than a single rate, the range could not exceed 60 percent of the minimum. The spread was calculated by subtracting the minimum from the maximum, dividing by the minimum, and multiplying by 100. For example, a $20 to $25 hourly range (a 25 percent spread) would have complied, while a $20 to $35 range (a 75 percent spread) would not. Ranges set by a collective bargaining agreement or by law, rule, or local ordinance were exempt.
The October 19, 2026, notice proposes deleting the cap, its calculation method, and its exceptions. Comments on that change are due December 18, 2026. The notice sets no final-rule effective date.
What Changed—and What Did Not
The notice proposes deleting subsection (b) and reordering (c)–(g), without otherwise changing Section 4.1. In other words, only the proposed cap changed. In summary:
| Provision | September 2025 Proposal | October 2026 Notice |
| Maximum range spread | Spread capped at 60 percent of the minimum; exception for ranges set by collective bargaining agreement, law, rule, or local ordinance (4.1(b)) | Deletion proposed |
| Open-ended ranges | Range must have both endpoints; “$17.00 per hour and up” is prohibited (4.1(c)) | Unchanged; reordered 4.1(b) |
| Third-party job sites | Employer responsible for violations if it retains content control or expressly agrees or contracts to relinquish it; no responsibility for independent scraping and aggregation without employer involvement (4.1(d)) | Unchanged; reordered 4.1(c) |
| Hyperlink compliance | Link must immediately open all required disclosures, clearly visible and without barriers. Primary posting must identify employer name and location and job title, and state that the link immediately provides the required pay and benefits information (4.1(e)) | Unchanged; reordered 4.1(d) |
| Higher offers | Pay, benefits, and compensation may increase when an employment offer is made (4.1(f)) | Unchanged; reordered 4.1(e) |
| Civil Service exam announcements | New Jersey Civil Service Commission examination announcements excluded (4.1(g)) | Unchanged; reordered 4.1(f) |
Again, the notice does not revise the employer definition, promotion requirements and exemptions, benefits and compensation definitions, enforcement provisions, or special rules for temporary help service firms and consulting firms.
How the Public Comments Shaped the Change
The NJDOL proposes deletion of the cap “as suggested by the commenters.” Their concerns included:
- Statutory authority.Commenters argued that neither the statute nor its legislative history authorizes a numerical cap. The New Jersey State Chamber of Commerce cited the NJDOL’s acknowledgment that it cannot deviate from statutory mandates.
- Unexplained percentage.Commenters questioned why 60 percent was chosen. The proposal says only that a cap would “ensure an appropriate level of specificity when pay ranges are used.”
- Other states’ approaches.The comments could not identify another state with a similar cap.
Why It Matters
Removing the cap would bring New Jersey in line with other pay transparency jurisdictions on range width. Multistate employers would no longer need a New Jersey-specific range methodology or separate, narrower postings for roles that New Jersey covers. This matters especially because the NJDOL reads the law’s coverage broadly. Under the proposal, an employer with ten or more employees anywhere may be covered if it does business, employs persons, or takes applications in New Jersey. The NJDOL’s wage and hour guidance in the form of frequently asked questions (FAQs) have suggested that nationally advertised postings and positions outside New Jersey may also be covered.
Removing the cap does not remove all limits on ranges. Under the remaining proposed rules, ranges must still have a defined minimum and maximum. Employers that provide or control posting content will still be responsible for postings on third-party sites. And the statute still requires disclosure of pay and a general description of benefits and other compensation programs for each covered posting.
Next Steps
Employers may want to consider the following questions:
- Have templates or pay-band policies adopted the proposed 60 percent cap, and should those voluntary restrictions be reconsidered?
- Does each covered posting disclose an hourly wage or salary, or a range with both endpoints?
- Does each covered posting describe eligible benefits and other compensation?
- Do recruiter and job-board postings comply? Do hyperlinks meet every condition in the proposed rule?
- Do promotion notices reach all employees in affected departments? The proposed rule calls for conspicuous workplace notices and posting on an employee-only website or intranet accessible to all employees, if one exists.
Developments to watch:
- The NJDOL’s response to comments and any final adoption notice and effective date
- Further guidance on out-of-state and remote roles, electronic promotion notices, promotion exceptions, and nontraditional pay
- Whether the NJDOL’s FAQs address the proposed deletion or a future qualitative range standard
- Enforcement under the statute (up to $300 for a first violation and up to $600 for each subsequent violation): The FAQs treat noncompliant postings for one opening across multiple platforms as one violation; separate openings can produce separate violations.
Ogletree Deakins’ Morristown office and Pay Equity Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Multistate Compliance, New Jersey, and Pay Equity blogs as additional information becomes available.
In addition, the Ogletree Deakins Client Portal tracks developments and provides real-time updates on Pay Transparency / Job Postings and New Jersey’s employment laws, including New Jersey’s Pay Transparency Law. Full law summaries are available for Premium-level subscribers. Snapshots and Updates are available for all registered client-users. For more information on the Client Portal or a Client Portal subscription, please reach out to clientportal@ogletree.com.
Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts
“Ogletree Deakins has experienced professionals in all areas of labour and employment law who provide efficient, client-focused service. We represent employers of all industries and sizes, from small businesses to Fortune 50 companies.”
Please visit the firm link to site
