The Washington Supreme Court issued an opinion Wednesday in a class action case that centers on the state's Equal Pay and Opportunities Act (EPOA) and its requirements for employers to disclose wage and benefit information in job postings.
The case, *Branson v. Washington Fine Wine & Spirits, LLC*, involves plaintiffs Lisa Branson and Cherie Burke, who filed suit individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated against Washington Fine Wine & Spirits, LLC, which operates under the business name Total Wine & More. The case reached the state's highest court through certification from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
At the heart of the dispute is the 2022 amendment to Washington's Equal Pay and Opportunities Act, which requires employers with 15 or more employees to disclose wage scale, salary range, and benefits information in all job postings. The law took effect Jan. 1, 2023, making Washington one of several states to implement pay transparency requirements.
The legislation, codified in RCW 49.58.110, represents part of a broader national movement toward wage transparency aimed at addressing pay inequities. Under the statute, employers must include specific compensation information in job advertisements, giving potential applicants clearer insight into expected pay ranges before applying.
Violations of the pay disclosure requirements entitle both employees and job applicants to remedies outlined in RCW 49.58.060-.070, according to RCW 49.58.110(4). These remedies can include monetary damages and other relief designed to address violations of the transparency requirements.
Total Wine & More, a major national wine and spirits retailer, operates multiple locations across Washington state. The company, along with unnamed defendants listed as "Does 1-20" in the complaint, faces allegations related to compliance with the state's job posting disclosure requirements.
The case represents a test of how Washington's pay transparency law will be interpreted and enforced, particularly in the context of large retail employers with multiple locations. The federal district court's decision to certify questions to the Washington Supreme Court suggests the case involves novel or significant interpretive issues under state law.
Pay transparency laws have gained momentum across the United States as lawmakers and advocates seek to address persistent wage gaps and promote equity in compensation practices. Washington's law is among the more comprehensive, requiring specific disclosure of wage scales and benefits information rather than just general salary ranges.
The timing of this case, coming roughly two years after the law took effect, reflects the ongoing process of legal clarification as employers, employees, and courts work to understand the practical application of these transparency requirements.
For employers subject to the law, the case could provide important guidance on compliance obligations and potential liability for violations. The statute's coverage of employers with 15 or more employees encompasses a significant portion of Washington's workforce, making the interpretation of its requirements particularly consequential.
The class action nature of the lawsuit suggests the plaintiffs allege violations that affected multiple job applicants or employees, rather than isolated incidents. Class certification allows individuals who may have been similarly affected by alleged non-disclosure to participate in the legal proceedings.
Washington's Equal Pay and Opportunities Act builds on existing federal and state laws addressing workplace equality, but the specific job posting requirements represent a more proactive approach to promoting pay equity. By requiring upfront disclosure of compensation information, the law aims to give job seekers better negotiating positions and reduce information asymmetries that can contribute to pay disparities.
The Supreme Court's handling of this certified question will likely influence how other employers interpret their obligations under the law and may affect similar transparency requirements in other jurisdictions. As more states consider or implement pay disclosure laws, Washington's judicial interpretation could serve as a model for other courts addressing comparable statutes.
The case also highlights the intersection of federal and state employment law, as the original lawsuit was filed in federal court before questions were certified to the state supreme court for resolution under Washington law. This procedural posture is common in cases involving state law claims that require authoritative interpretation by state courts.
As Washington continues to implement and refine its approach to pay equity, the outcome of this case will provide important clarity for employers navigating compliance with transparency requirements and for employees and job applicants seeking to understand their rights under the law.