Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Pay Transparency topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

House Judiciary Committee advances bill requiring pay disclosure in job listings

3168445 · April 30, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The House Judiciary Committee voted to move House Bill 156 out of committee with fiscal notes after sponsor Representative Genevieve Mina summarized the bill's requirement that employers disclose wage ranges in job postings and a prohibition on asking applicants about prior pay history.

The House Judiciary Committee on April 30 moved House Bill 156, a pay-transparency measure sponsored by Representative Genevieve Mina, out of committee with attached fiscal notes.

Representative Genevieve Mina, sponsor of House Bill 156 and a representative for Anchorage House District 19, told the committee, “House Bill 156 is requiring wage disclosure ... [and] additionally prohibits employers to ask about a potential applicant salary history,” and said the bill also affirms employees’ existing federal right to discuss wages within the workplace.

The bill, Mina said, has two stated aims: to promote efficiency in a tight labor market by requiring transparency of wages or salaries in job postings and to address wage discrimination by enshrining the federal protections for employee wage discussions in state law. No public testimony was offered in the committee hearing; committee members were told that written testimony could be emailed to house.judiciary@akleg.gov.

Vice Chair Representative Kopp raised a procedural concern about employer ability to determine whether an offer is competitive without improperly inquiring into an applicant’s prior pay, saying he wanted clarity that employers could still assess whether their offer is in the ballpark without violating the prohibition on asking past-compensation questions. Representative Mina responded that the committee could seek Legal Services’ interpretation on that hypothetical scenario.

After brief committee discussion and no objections, a member moved that House Bill 156 (work order 34-LSO752\A) move from committee with attached fiscal notes. “Seeing no objection, House Bill 156 ... moves from committee with attached fiscal notes,” the chair announced, and staff were instructed to complete the paperwork.

The committee did not take a roll-call vote on the measure during the hearing; the motion passed by unanimous consent (no objection recorded). The bill will advance with fiscal notes attached and technical or conforming edits to be handled by legal services as needed.

The committee adjourned at 1:39 p.m.