Most New York employers think they are compliant with the state’s pay transparency law. Most are wrong. The job posting platforms now flag missing salary ranges, so the obvious failures are largely resolved, but the substantive requirements of New York Labor Law § 194-b reach further than the visible postings. Internal promotions, transfers, remote roles reporting into New York, and the breadth of the “good faith” range all produce compliance gaps that show up in NYSDOL complaints and NYC Commission on Human Rights investigations. A New York business law attorney auditing pay transparency practices typically finds three or four issues per employer, even at companies that believed they had handled it. The cleanup is straightforward when caught early and expensive when caught by an enforcement complaint.
Here is what the state and city laws actually require, where the gaps usually sit, and what an audit should cover.
What Section 194-b Actually Requires
New York Labor Law § 194-b took effect on September 17, 2023, layered on top of New York City’s Salary Transparency Law (Local Law 32, as amended by Local Law 59), which has been in effect since November 1, 2022. The two laws cover overlapping but distinct ground.
Section 194-b applies to private employers with four or more employees. Nonprofits and labor organizations are covered. Temporary staffing agencies are exempt. Every covered employer that “advertises” a job, promotion, or transfer opportunity must include:
- The compensation or range of compensation, expressed as a minimum and maximum, that the employer in good faith believes to be accurate at the time of posting
- The job description for the position, if one exists
- A clear statement that compensation is based on commission, for commission-only positions
The geographic reach is broader than many employers recognize. The law covers any opportunity that will be physically performed at least in part in New York State, plus any opportunity performed outside the state that reports to a supervisor, office, or other worksite in New York. A remote role based in Texas reporting to a Manhattan manager is covered.
Penalties under state law run $1,000 for the first violation, $2,000 for the second, and $3,000 for a third or subsequent violation, assessed by the New York State Department of Labor. There is no private right of action under the state statute, which means employees and applicants cannot sue directly. The NYC law works differently and operates through the NYC Human Rights Law, which does provide private remedies.
Where Most Employers Fall Short
The pattern of compliance failures is consistent across industries.
Internal postings missing salary information. The state and city laws both apply to internal job postings, promotion announcements, and transfer opportunities, not just external recruiting. Companies that posted clean external listings on Indeed and LinkedIn often fail entirely on the internal posting board where employees apply for promotions.
Ranges that are not in good faith. A posting listing “$60,000 to $250,000” for a marketing manager role is not a good faith range. The NYSDOL guidance and NYC CCHR enforcement positions are clear that ranges must reflect what the employer would actually pay, narrowing as duties and qualifications narrow. Inflated ranges to preserve negotiating room are a common audit finding.
Remote roles reporting into New York. Employers based outside New York with a single New York manager often miss the reporting-relationship trigger. Hiring a remote engineer in Florida who will report to a Brooklyn-based VP requires compliance with Section 194-b even if the company has no other New York presence.
Job description gaps. Section 194-b requires the job description “if such description exists.” Many employers interpret this narrowly and post bare-bones listings. The CCHR has enforced the NYC version aggressively against postings that omit substantive role information, and the same approach applies under the state law where a description exists internally.
Commission-only language. Sales-heavy organizations frequently omit the required statement that a position is paid solely on commission, or include a salary range when no salary actually applies.
Multiple-jurisdiction overlay. New York City, Westchester County, Albany County, and the City of Ithaca each have their own pay transparency requirements, with somewhat different definitions and enforcement mechanisms. Employers operating across jurisdictions need to comply with the most stringent applicable rule for each posting.
What a New York Business Law Attorney Watches Going Forward
The compliance landscape continues to expand. On December 4, 2025, the New York City Council overrode Mayor Eric Adams’ veto and enacted Int. 982-A and Int. 984-A, which require private employers with at least 200 employees to report demographic and pay data to a designated NYC agency on an annual basis. Implementation is phased, with the agency required to develop a reporting system and standardized form, and non-compliant employers will be publicly listed alongside civil penalties.
This expansion shifts the compliance question from job postings to actual compensation practices. Once an employer is reporting pay data by demographic category, the disparities the data reveals create independent legal exposure under the New York State Human Rights Law and the NYC Human Rights Law, both of which prohibit pay discrimination.
The original Section 194-b included statutory recordkeeping requirements that were removed by amendment before the law took effect. Employers therefore have no explicit statutory obligation to retain a history of compensation ranges and job descriptions, but the practical case for keeping these records is strong. NYSDOL investigations and NYC CCHR complaints both ask for posting histories, and the absence of records makes defense substantially harder.
A Compliance Audit Worth Running
A practical pay transparency audit should cover several specific elements.
Pull every job posting issued in the past 12 months, internal and external. Verify each posting contains a good faith salary range with a defensible minimum and maximum, a job description where one exists, and a commission disclosure where applicable. Check internal posting systems and HRIS notification processes to ensure promotion and transfer opportunities follow the same disclosure rules. Identify any remote roles posted as out-of-state that report to New York-based managers, and confirm those followed Section 194-b. Map the company’s hiring activity against the New York City, Westchester County, Albany County, and Ithaca rules where applicable.
The audit should also assess actual compensation practices in the categories that will be reportable under the new NYC pay data law for employers approaching the 200-employee threshold. Pay disparities that surface in a demographic breakdown create their own legal exposure independent of the posting requirements.
Train hiring managers, HR staff, and any third-party recruiters on the disclosure requirements. Many violations originate at the recruiter level when third-party platforms post on the employer’s behalf without the required information.
When to Bring in a New York Business Law Attorney
Pay transparency compliance in New York requires layering multiple state and local rules onto consistent recruiting and promotion practices, and the new NYC pay data reporting framework is going to change the analysis again over the next several years. A New York business law attorney conducting a compliance audit can identify the gaps, draft the standard posting language, and align internal HR processes before an enforcement complaint surfaces them.
The Mundaca Law Firm advises New York employers on pay transparency compliance, employment policy drafting, and the broader employment law issues that surface alongside them. If your job postings, internal promotion notices, and recruiting practices have not been audited under the current Section 194-b framework and the NYC overlay, a compliance review now is significantly less expensive than the consequences of a CCHR investigation or an NYSDOL complaint.