WatchGov

California bills · 2025-2026 Regular Session

California SB 642

Employment: payment of wages.

  1. Introduced
  2. In committee
  3. Passed Senate
  4. Passed House
  5. To Governor
  6. Became law

Sponsors

Cosponsors (1)

Summary

Official abstract published by the California legislature· summary

Existing law imposes varying requirements upon employers to share the pay scale for a position with an applicant or in a job posting, as provided. Existing law defines "pay scale" as the salary or hourly wage range that the employer reasonably expects to pay for the position. This bill would revise the definition of "pay scale" to mean an estimate of this expected wage range that an employer reasonably expects to pay for the position upon hire and is made in good faith. Existing law prohibits an employer from paying its employees at wage rates less than the rates paid to employees of the opposite sex or another race or ethnicity for substantially similar work, except under specified circumstances. Existing law requires a civil action to recover wages for a violation of those provisions to be commenced no later than 2 years after the cause of action occurs or, if the cause of action arises out of a willful violation, no later than 3 years after the cause of action occurs. This bill would prohibit an employer from paying employees at wage rates less than the rates paid to employees of another sex instead of the opposite sex, and would require a civil action to recover wages to be commenced no later than 3 years after the last date the cause of action occurs. The bill would provide that an employee is entitled to obtain relief for the entire period of time in which a violation of its provisions exists, but not to exceed 6 years. This bill would specify that a cause of action occurs when an alleged unlawful compensation decision or practice is adopted, when an individual becomes subject to the decision or practice, or when an individual is affected by the application of the decision or practice. The bill would provide that its provisions do not prohibit the application of prescribed legal doctrine. The bill would define "wages," "wage rates," and "sex" for purposes of those provisions, and would specify that its provisions shall not be construed to define these terms for other purposes.

Text versions

Roll-call votes

State vote data last updated Oct 15, 2026, 8:06 AM.

DateVoteResultYour legislators
Sep 9, 2025
Senate		Unfinished Business SB642 Limón et al. ConcurrencepassSet your home in California to see
Sep 8, 2025
House		SB 642 Limón Senate Third Reading By KalrapassSet your home in California to see
Aug 29, 2025
House		Do pass as amended.passSet your home in California to see
Jul 8, 2025
House		Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]passSet your home in California to see
Jun 25, 2025
House		Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Judiciary]passSet your home in California to see
Jun 3, 2025
Senate		3rd ReadingpassSet your home in California to see
May 23, 2025
Senate		Do pass as amendedpassSet your home in California to see
May 19, 2025
Senate		Placed on suspense filepassSet your home in California to see
Apr 29, 2025
Senate		Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Appropriations]passSet your home in California to see
Apr 23, 2025
Senate		Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Judiciary]passSet your home in California to see

Actions