California Equal Pay Rights: What SB 642 Changes for Workers

California has some of the nation’s strongest protections against workplace pay discrimination. Yet employees can still discover that colleagues performing substantially similar work earn more, without any clear explanation for the difference. When an employer’s pay practices seem unfair, workers may struggle to uncover the reason for the disparity, understand their rights, and pursue a legal remedy.

Senate Bill 642 (SB 642), which took effect January 1, 2026, strengthens California’s Equal Pay Act in several important ways. It revises pay transparency rules, extends the time employees have to bring certain equal pay lawsuits, and clarifies how far back they can seek compensation for unlawful pay differences.

For employees who suspect gender-based pay discrimination, these changes provide important reasons to understand their rights and consider their options.

What Is California’s Equal Pay Act?

California Labor Code Section 1197.5 prohibits employers from paying employees less than employees of another sex for substantially similar work performed under similar working conditions, unless the employer can establish a legally permitted reason for the difference. The law also prohibits pay discrimination based on race or ethnicity.

The law does not require employees to hold identical job titles or perform precisely the same tasks in order to be legally protected. Instead, it compares jobs based on a combination of skill, effort, and responsibility, taking into account the working conditions involved.

For example, two employees in different departments could perform substantially similar work even if their titles differ. If they have comparable responsibilities, use similar skills, and work under similar conditions, a difference in compensation could warrant closer examination.

The Equal Pay Act covers more than hourly wages and annual salaries. Compensation can include overtime, bonuses, stock options, benefits, paid time off, and other forms of pay. A disparity in total compensation could therefore matter even when two employees have the same base salary.

An employee does not have to prove that a supervisor intended to discriminate against them to establish an Equal Pay Act violation. The central questions concern the work performed, the compensation difference, and whether the employer can establish a lawful justification.

What Must an Employer Show to Justify Different Pay?

Not every difference in compensation is unlawful. Employers can pay employees different amounts when the difference is based on a legally recognized factor and satisfies the requirements of the Equal Pay Act. The law recognizes several potential justifications:

• A seniority system that rewards length of service.
• A merit system that measures job performance.
• A system that measures earnings by the quantity or quality of production.
• A bona fide factor other than sex, such as education, training, or experience, that satisfies the law’s requirements.

The last category has important limits. A factor other than sex must be job-related and consistent with business necessity. The employer must also show that the factor was not based on or derived from a sex-based pay difference, that it was reasonably applied, and that the factor or factors account for the entire wage difference.

Even then, the defense does not apply if the employee demonstrates that an alternative business practice would serve the same business purpose without producing the pay disparity.

An employer therefore cannot necessarily justify a pay difference by pointing to a general preference for one employee or claiming that compensation decisions are discretionary. The explanation must satisfy the statute.

Prior salary also cannot, by itself, justify a pay disparity. An employee who earned less at a previous job should not automatically be placed at a disadvantage in a new position because of that earlier pay history.

How Does SB 642 Change California’s Pay Transparency Rules?

One of the challenges in identifying unequal pay is that employees and job applicants often have limited information about compensation. SB 642 strengthens California’s existing pay transparency requirements by revising the definition of a pay scale.

Under California Labor Code Section 432.3, an employer must provide an applicant with the pay scale for a position upon reasonable request. An employee can also request the pay scale for their current position. Employers with 15 or more employees must include the pay scale in job postings, including postings published through third parties acting on their behalf.

SB 642 clarifies that a pay scale means a good-faith estimate of the salary or hourly wage range the employer reasonably expects to pay for the position upon hire.

This matters because a posted range is most useful when it reflects a genuine compensation expectation rather than a broad figure with little practical meaning. A realistic range gives applicants a better basis for evaluating an opportunity and negotiating compensation.

Pay transparency can also help employees assess their own compensation. If a company advertises a position with responsibilities similar to those of an existing employee’s job, the disclosed range may raise questions about whether the employee’s pay is consistent with the employer’s stated compensation practices.

However, a job posting alone does not establish that discrimination occurred. Differences in responsibilities, experience, seniority, performance, and other lawful factors can affect compensation. The information is a starting point for asking questions, not proof of a violation.

California law also prohibits employers from asking job applicants for their salary history or relying on that history to determine whether to make an offer or how much to pay. Applicants can voluntarily disclose their salary history, but employers cannot use prior salary to justify a pay disparity that violates the Equal Pay Act.

Can Employees Discuss Their Pay With Coworkers?

Yes. California law protects employees who disclose their own wages, discuss other employees’ wages, ask about another employee’s wages, or help coworkers exercise their equal-pay rights. Employers cannot prohibit these activities or retaliate against employees for exercising protected rights.

Pay discussions can help workers identify disparities that might otherwise remain hidden. An employee who learns that a colleague performing substantially similar work earns more can ask questions about the difference and consider whether it reflects a lawful compensation practice.

Employees are not required to disclose their own wages, however. The law protects the right to discuss compensation; it does not require workers to share that information.

Employers also cannot discharge or otherwise discriminate or retaliate against employees because they seek to enforce the Equal Pay Act or assist others in doing so. Under the statute, certain adverse actions occurring within 90 days of protected activity create a rebuttable presumption in favor of the employee’s retaliation claim.

Employees who experience threats, reduced hours, unfavorable assignments, discipline, or other adverse treatment after raising pay concerns should preserve relevant communications and records. The timing and circumstances of an employer’s response can be important when evaluating a possible retaliation claim.

How Does SB 642 Extend the Deadline for Equal Pay Claims?

The time limit for filing a lawsuit can make a substantial difference in an equal pay dispute. Employees might not immediately know that a pay disparity exists, particularly when compensation information is confidential in practice or difficult to obtain.

Before SB 642, the Equal Pay Act provided a two-year deadline for a civil action to recover unpaid wages, with a three-year period for claims arising from willful violations. SB 642 establishes a three-year period for bringing a civil action to recover wages under the Equal Pay Act, measured from the last date the cause of action occurs.

The law also clarifies when a cause of action occurs. Relevant events include the adoption of an allegedly unlawful compensation decision or practice, the point when an employee becomes subject to that decision or practice, and each time the employee is affected by its application. That can include receiving a paycheck or other compensation resulting from the allegedly unlawful practice.

These changes matter because unequal pay can be the result of a compensation decision made years earlier. Under the revised statute, the legal analysis does not necessarily end with the date that decision was first made. Later paychecks affected by the decision can also be relevant.

The statute also preserves the potential application of the continuing violation doctrine and the discovery rule where appropriate. Whether either doctrine applies depends on the circumstances and the relevant legal standards.

How Much Lost Pay Can Employees Recover?

SB 642 allows an employee to seek relief for the entire period during which an Equal Pay Act violation existed, subject to a maximum six-year recovery period.

This is a significant change because the period available for recovering lost compensation can be longer than the deadline for commencing a civil action. An employee who brings a timely lawsuit may be able to seek recovery for a longer-running pay disparity, rather than being limited automatically to wages lost during the most recent three years.

For example, suppose an employee has been paid less than a coworker for substantially similar work over several years, and the difference stems from an allegedly unlawful compensation practice. Depending on the evidence, applicable deadlines, and legal issues in the case, the employee could seek compensation covering a period of up to six years.

The six-year period is not an automatic award. The employee still needs to establish a violation, and the amount recoverable depends on the facts and applicable law. But the expanded recovery period can make a meaningful difference in the value of a claim involving a persistent pay disparity.

What Can Employees Recover for Equal Pay Violations?

An employee who proves an Equal Pay Act violation can seek the wages they lost because of the unlawful pay difference, interest, and an additional equal amount as liquidated damages. The law also allows recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees and litigation costs in a qualifying civil action.

The statute separately protects employees against retaliation for invoking or assisting in the enforcement of their equal pay rights. Depending on the circumstances, remedies for retaliation can include reinstatement, lost wages and work benefits, interest, and other appropriate relief.

Equal pay and broader employment discrimination claims are not identical. A pay disparity might raise issues under the Equal Pay Act and, depending on the facts, California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), which prohibits sex discrimination and other forms of unlawful workplace discrimination. Each law has its own requirements, deadlines, and remedies.

For that reason, an employee should not assume that every claim follows the same deadline or that the Equal Pay Act is the only possible legal avenue.

What Should You Do If You Suspect Gender-Based Pay Discrimination at Work?

Employees do not need conclusive proof before taking reasonable steps to understand a potential pay disparity. Careful documentation can help clarify the situation and preserve useful evidence.

Consider keeping records of your job duties, responsibilities, work experience, performance reviews, compensation history, bonus awards, and relevant employment communications. If you learn that a coworker performing substantially similar work receives higher compensation, record what you know about the jobs and the circumstances of the difference. Do not obtain confidential records unlawfully or access information you are not authorized to see.

You can also review job postings and pay scales for comparable positions, ask appropriate questions about compensation practices, and document any response from your employer. If you raise a concern, keep a record of when you did so and any subsequent changes in your treatment at work.

Most importantly, do not assume that a pay disparity is lawful simply because your employer offers an explanation. The Equal Pay Act places specific requirements on the employer’s justification, and those requirements can warrant a closer look.

How Attorney Richard Koss Helps Workers With California Equal Pay Concerns

Unequal pay can affect far more than a paycheck. Over time, lower compensation can reduce retirement savings, benefits, financial stability, and future earning potential. SB 642 gives employees additional time to pursue Equal Pay Act claims and clarifies the potential recovery period, but evaluating a claim still requires careful attention to the facts and applicable deadlines.

Richard Koss represents Bay Area employees in California employment disputes, including discrimination and retaliation matters. If you believe you have been paid less because of your sex, or if your employer has retaliated against you for raising concerns about unequal pay, contacting the law office of Richard Koss can help you understand your rights and potential next steps.

If you suspect gender-based pay discrimination in your California workplace, contact San Francisco employment lawyer Richard Koss to discuss your situation and learn what options may be available.