California 2025-2026 Regular Session

California Senate Bill SB642

Introduced
2/20/25  
Refer
3/12/25  
Refer
4/10/25  
Report Pass
4/23/25  
Refer
4/23/25  
Report Pass
4/30/25  
Report Pass
4/23/25  
Report Pass
4/30/25  
Refer
5/1/25  
Refer
4/23/25  
Report Pass
4/30/25  
Report Pass
5/23/25  
Refer
5/1/25  
Refer
5/1/25  
Report Pass
5/23/25  
Engrossed
6/3/25  
Refer
6/9/25  
Engrossed
6/3/25  
Report Pass
5/23/25  
Refer
6/9/25  
Report Pass
6/26/25  
Refer
6/26/25  
Refer
6/26/25  
Report Pass
7/9/25  
Refer
7/9/25  
Report Pass
8/29/25  

Caption

Employment: payment of wages.

Impact

If enacted, SB 642 would strengthen existing laws that prevent wage discrimination by requiring employers to justify pay disparities based on factors other than sex or race. This legislative change is projected to create a more equitable labor market in California by holding employers accountable for discrepancies in pay between employees performing similar roles. Additionally, the bill prohibits employers from seeking salary history from job applicants, thereby limiting practices that perpetuate wage inequality based on past earnings.

Summary

Senate Bill 642, introduced by Senator Limn, focuses on amending sections of the Labor Code related to employment and the payment of wages. The bill aims to revise the definition of 'pay scale', mandating that employers provide wage estimates that they 'reasonably expect' to pay upon hire, thereby enhancing transparency in salary negotiations. This modification is part of a broader effort to ensure fair compensation practices among employers and to address wage disparities based on gender or race. SB 642 stipulates that civil actions to recover unpaid wages can be brought within three years of the violation, extending the time frame for claims under particular conditions.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding SB 642 appears to be predominantly positive among labor rights advocates, who see it as a significant step towards promoting gender and racial equality in wage practices. However, some business groups may express concerns about the burden of compliance and the potential for increased legal disputes. Overall, the bill reflects a broader societal commitment to equal pay for equal work, which is seen as both a moral and economic imperative.

Contention

Notable points of contention regarding SB 642 include debates about the implications of restricting employers' freedom to ask about previous salary history and the concerns raised by some that this may complicate hiring processes. Additionally, there may be differing opinions on the necessity of the extended time frames for wage recovery claims, as some might argue that it could lead to an increase in lawsuits. These discussions highlight the ongoing tension between enforcing equitable pay practices and fostering a business-friendly regulatory environment.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Previously Filed As

CA AB130

Employment.

CA SB130

Employment.

CA AB171

Employment.

CA SB171

Employment.

CA SB723

Employment: rehiring and retention: displaced workers.

CA AB2335

Public employment: compensation and classification.

CA AB1228

Fast food restaurant industry: Fast Food Council: health, safety, employment, and minimum wage.

CA AB2499

Employment: unlawful discrimination and paid sick days: victims of violence.

CA SB809

California Fair Employment and Housing Act: Fair Chance Act: conviction history.

CA SB497

Protected employee conduct.

Similar Bills

CA AB2282

Salary history information.

CA SB497

Protected employee conduct.

CA AB758

Solicitation of employees: strikes, lockouts, and labor disturbances.

CA AB46

Employers: wage discrimination.

CA AB1388

Employers: wage discrimination.

AZ SB1668

Employment and labor; amendments

AZ SB1548

Employment and labor omnibus

MT SB146

Revise laws relating to wage transparency