California Equal Pay Act: What It Requires and What SB 642 Changed in 2026

California employers must be able to explain pay differences between employees who perform substantially similar work, and since January 1, 2026, SB 642 also requires covered job postings to use realistic, good-faith pay ranges. The Equal Pay Act does not require identical pay for everyone: differences may be lawful when they are based on legitimate factors such as experience, seniority, education, or performance and are applied consistently. The comparison turns on the work itself, not simply job titles. SB 642 also lengthened the period in which employees can bring Equal Pay Act claims, increasing the importance of maintaining records that explain compensation decisions. Together, these rules make accurate job descriptions, usable pay ranges, and documented pay practices important for both employees evaluating a possible disparity and employers setting compensation.

How California’s Equal Pay Act Evaluates Pay Differences

The California Equal Pay Act is intended to prevent unlawful pay disparities based on sex or other protected characteristics covered by the law. It compares employees who perform substantially similar work, considering the skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions involved. Employees do not need identical titles or identical day-to-day tasks for their work to be comparable.

When employees doing substantially similar work receive different pay, the employer needs a legitimate explanation grounded in job-related factors. Experience, education, performance, and seniority may help explain a difference when the employer applies those criteria consistently. Informal habits or assumptions are not a substitute for criteria connected to the work.

This law is distinct from, but related to, pay-transparency requirements. Equal pay rules address whether compensation differences are justified. Pay-transparency rules address what compensation information employers must disclose during hiring. The two issues can intersect when a posted range does not reflect the actual role or when an offer cannot be explained by consistent compensation criteria. The broader relationship between these requirements is discussed in how the Equal Pay Act affects business.

Why Job Titles Do Not Determine Whether Work Is Comparable

Pay inequity is not always apparent from a payroll report. Employees with the same title may perform different work, while employees with different titles may have closely comparable responsibilities. A meaningful review looks at actual duties, decision-making authority, required skills and credentials, working conditions, and how bonuses or commissions are determined.

For example, a hypothetical marketing team might have a “Marketing Specialist” and a “Campaign Coordinator.” If both independently manage campaigns, work with vendors, analyze performance data, and report to the same leader, their titles alone would not explain a large pay gap. A difference could be easier to support if one employee manages a larger portfolio or has substantially greater responsibility. Clear job levels and defined pay practices help organizations make consistent decisions and explain them when questions arise.

What SB 642 Changed In 2026

SB 642 took effect on January 1, 2026. Brown & Brown’s 2026 pay transparency and pay equity update explains that the law requires employers to provide realistic, good-faith pay ranges that reflect what a new hire can actually expect to receive. A range should relate to the specific opening rather than serve as a broad band spanning several job levels or scenarios. The update also notes that SB 642 lengthened the time available for employees to bring Equal Pay Act claims and can allow recovery for up to six years of violations.

The longer recovery period makes old compensation decisions relevant for longer. A decision that was not documented or justified when it was made may be harder to explain later. Recordkeeping should therefore be an ongoing part of compensation management, not a task limited to the hiring process. Dated records that connect pay decisions to job-related factors can show how a decision was reached and whether the same criteria were used in comparable cases.

What Makes a Pay Range Good Faith?

A posted range should help a candidate understand the likely compensation for the specific opening. It should not merely describe a possible band across multiple levels or circumstances. Employers can account for legitimate differences between candidates, but the range should match the role and level for which they are actually hiring.

Before posting a range, hiring teams should be able to identify the job’s level and the expected starting range for that opening. If those details are unclear internally, the posting may confuse candidates and make it harder to explain the offer later.

What Employees Can Do About a Possible Pay Disparity

Employees who are concerned about a pay difference can begin by collecting factual information. They can document their regular duties, responsibilities, and required skills, then compare the substance of their work with that of employees in potentially similar roles. They can also review available job descriptions, compensation policies, and posted ranges.

Experience, tenure, performance, and differences in job scope may help explain a pay difference. Keeping records of responsibilities, performance feedback, and compensation communications can make a conversation more specific. Employees can raise the issue with a manager or HR representative by asking how the role is evaluated and which criteria were used to set pay. Information about what pay equity means can also help distinguish a question about fairness from a conclusion that a difference is unlawful.

What Employers Should Review

Compliance is not a one-time posting exercise. Employers can start with job descriptions that accurately explain each role’s purpose, core responsibilities, and expected experience. Pay ranges should connect to those roles and levels. When an exception is made, the employer should record the job-related reason for it.

Managers influence starting offers, merit increases, promotions, and retention adjustments. Without shared guidance, managers may make inconsistent decisions for similar roles. Training should explain which factors are appropriate in compensation decisions, when to involve HR, and what should be documented.

Periodic compensation reviews can help identify unexplained differences and test whether stated practices are being followed. Reviews may compare employees performing substantially similar work and look for patterns in starting pay, promotions, or incentive compensation. The goal is not identical pay for everyone. It is to identify differences that lack a supportable explanation and address the underlying process or data when needed.

How Remote and Distributed Teams Can Apply Consistent Practices

Distributed work can fragment pay decisions across managers, systems, and locations. A California-based employee may report to a manager elsewhere or work alongside colleagues in several locations. Employers can reduce inconsistency by using a shared workflow that confirms the role and level, identifies the applicable range, and records the reason for any approved exception.

For organizations that use contingent workers alongside employees, clear role definitions and compensation records can also help distinguish assignments and pay practices across the workforce. Those processes do not replace the need to assess which legal requirements apply to each worker or role. Pay information on a pay stub may help employees understand recorded earnings, but it does not by itself explain how compensation was set.

*This article is for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice.