New law to prevent employers from asking for pay history

Starting Jan. 1, employers in Minnesota will no longer be able to ask prospective employees about their pay history during job interviews.

The law, called the Preventing Pay Discrimination Act, was signed by Gov. Tim Walz in May. It prevents employers from asking employees about their pay history during a job application process. The purpose of the law is to narrow the gender and racial pay gap and encourage employers to focus on the skills and qualifications of the employee, rather than what a previous job may have paid them.

The law does not prevent job applicants from voluntarily giving the information to an employer.

According to a press release by the Minnesota Department of Human Rights about the law, use of pay history in job applications often determines the future of people’s pay, which can reinforce disparities in wages earned by women and people of color.

The press release says that for every dollar a white man earns, white women earn $0.81, Black and indigenous women both earn $0.61, Black men earn $0.69 and indigenous men $0.70. The gap between Latina women and white men is the starkest, with Latina women earning $0.55.

“When someone’s future pay is locked to their past pay, the cycle of unequal pay impacts them over the course of their life,” said MDHR Commissioner Rebecca Lucero. “This new law seeks to break that cycle.  These pay history laws work.”

Minnesota will be the 22nd state in the nation to add a pay history ban to its books, according to the press release.

Brian Benkstein, a labor & employment attorney and a partner at Felhaber Larson, said the law stands to benefit hourly workers the most.

“It’s common for employers to ask on an employment application to list your hourly rate for your four most recent positions,” he said. “Because of this law, the employers aren’t going to be able to even ask that question. I think that it’s going to … level the playing field.”

The new law does concern Benkstein a little bit because of the disputes it may create if an applicant is improperly baited into disclosing a wage during an interview conversation.

“In other words, it could involve some ‘he said, he said, she said, she said,’ about how those conversations occurred, but frankly I’d much rather have that safety valve in place as opposed to no safety valve,” he said.