Senate Judiciary holds first hearing on SB78, bill would require pay ranges in job postings and bar salary-history questions

Senate Bill 78, which would prohibit employers from asking applicants about past salary, require job postings to include a salary or salary range, and protect workers’ rights to discuss compensation, received its first hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Ariel Wigan, chief of staff to Sen. Forest Dunbar (bill sponsor), outlined the bill’s core elements and said the measure “addresses a well documented issue called wage scarring.” Wigan told the committee SB78 would prohibit employers from asking an applicant about salary history, require job postings to list a salary or salary range and bar retaliation for discussing wages.

Why it matters: Supporters said the bill aims to reduce pay inequities that arise when past wages anchor offers in subsequent jobs, which can particularly harm women and Alaska Native workers. Committee members asked detailed implementation questions about acceptable salary-range breadth, First Amendment concerns and which state entities are covered.

Wigan summarized the bill’s provisions: an amendment to AS 23.10 adding a new article on disclosure of employment compensation; a requirement that job listings include a salary or salary range; a prohibition on asking applicants about prior compensation; a prohibition on retaliation for discussing wages; a civil claim window of up to three years after a violation; fines set in statute between $100 and $102,000 with discretion for the Department of Labor and Workforce Development to reduce fines or allow corrective audits; and a direction to the department to adopt implementing regulations.

During questioning, senators asked how the law would treat employers that posted unhelpful ranges (for example, very wide bands such as $35,000–$185,000). Wigan replied the bill does not set a numeric standard in statute and suggested the department could look to peer states’ regulatory practices to shape meaningful rules. Senator Kiel asked whether that regulatory detail could be added to the bill; Wigan said the sponsors would consider it in writing.

Senator Myers raised a coverage question: the bill’s employer definition explicitly names the University of Alaska and the Alaska Railroad Corporation in addition to the state and political subdivisions. Wigan said those two were specified because they can be treated differently under law and that she would confirm the coverage in a written response from legal staff.

Witnesses included Mike Walsh, vice president of public policy for the 4 Acre Group, a nonprofit capacity organization, who testified in support. Walsh said pay-transparency requirements help close gender pay gaps and aid recruiting and retention; he noted his organization posts pay ranges on its nonprofit job board and urged adoption of SB78.

No public opponents appeared during the committee’s public testimony period. The committee set an amendment deadline and left the bill “set aside for further review;” the chair asked interested parties to submit proposed amendments by 5 p.m. on Monday, March 31.

The committee did not take a formal vote on SB78 during the hearing.