← California State Legislature · All bills
SB 642
Employment: payment of wages.
Senate · Jobs and workers
What this bill does
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. …
Read the full official 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.
Official summary from the Legislative Counsel’s office, via OpenStates.
Floor votes (3)
June 3, 2025 — Third reading vote
Passed · 28 yes · 10 no · 2 other
Yes (28): Ben Allen, Bob Archuleta, Jesse Arreguín, Angelique Ashby, Josh Becker, Catherine Blakespear, Christopher Cabaldon, Anna Caballero, Sabrina Cervantes, Dave Cortese, María Elena Durazo, Lena Gonzalez, Tim Grayson, John Laird, Monique Limón, Mike McGuire, Jerry McNerney, Caroline Menjivar, Steve Padilla, Sasha Pérez, Laura Richardson, Susan Rubio, Lola Smallwood-Cuevas, Henry Stern, Tom Umberg, Aisha Wahab, Akilah Weber Pierson, Scott Wiener
No (10): Marie Alvarado-Gil, Steve Choi, Megan Dahle, Shannon Grove, Brian Jones, Roger Niello, Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh, Kelly Seyarto, Tony Strickland, Suzette Valladares
Other / no vote recorded (2): Melissa Hurtado, Eloise Reyes
Official motion wording
3rd Reading
Official record: leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
September 8, 2025 — Third reading vote
Passed · 58 yes · 15 no · 7 other
Yes (58): Dawn Addis, Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, Patrick Ahrens, David Alvarez, Joaquin Arambula, Jasmeet Bains, Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, Steve Bennett, Marc Berman, Blanca Rubio, Tasha Boerner, Mia Bonta, Isaac Bryan, Lisa Calderon, Jessica Caloza, Juan Carrillo, Celeste Rodriguez, Damon Connolly, Sade Elhawary, Mike Fong, Jesse Gabriel, Robert Garcia, Mike Gipson, Matt Haney, John Harabedian, Gregg Hart, Jacqui Irwin, Corey Jackson, Ash Kalra, Maggy Krell, Alex Lee, Josh Lowenthal, Mark González, Tina McKinnor, Michelle Rodriguez, Al Muratsuchi, Liz Ortega, Blanca Pacheco, Diane Papan, Darsh Patel, Gail Pellerin, Cottie Petrie-Norris, Sharon Quirk-Silva, James Ramos, Rhodesia Ransom, Robert Rivas, Chris Rogers, Pilar Schiavo, Nick Schultz, LaShae Sharp-Collins, José Solache, Esmeralda Soria, Catherine Stefani, Avelino Valencia, Chris Ward, Buffy Wicks, Lori Wilson, Rick Zbur
No (15): Leticia Castillo, Carl DeMaio, Diane Dixon, Stan Ellis, James Gallagher, Heather Hadwick, Jeff Gonzalez, Natasha Johnson, Tom Lackey, Ali Macedo, Joe Patterson, Kate Sanchez, Tri Ta, David Tangipa, Anamarie Ávila Farías
Other / no vote recorded (7): Juan Alanis, Phillip Chen, Laurie Davies, Heath Flora, Joshua Hoover, Stephanie Nguyen, Greg Wallis
Official motion wording
SB 642 Limón Senate Third Reading By Kalra
Official record: leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
September 9, 2025 — Concurrence vote
Passed · 30 yes · 10 no
Yes (30): Ben Allen, Bob Archuleta, Jesse Arreguín, Angelique Ashby, Josh Becker, Catherine Blakespear, Christopher Cabaldon, Anna Caballero, Sabrina Cervantes, Dave Cortese, María Elena Durazo, Lena Gonzalez, Tim Grayson, Melissa Hurtado, John Laird, Monique Limón, Mike McGuire, Jerry McNerney, Caroline Menjivar, Steve Padilla, Sasha Pérez, Eloise Reyes, Laura Richardson, Susan Rubio, Lola Smallwood-Cuevas, Henry Stern, Tom Umberg, Aisha Wahab, Akilah Weber Pierson, Scott Wiener
No (10): Marie Alvarado-Gil, Steve Choi, Megan Dahle, Shannon Grove, Brian Jones, Roger Niello, Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh, Kelly Seyarto, Tony Strickland, Suzette Valladares
Official motion wording
Unfinished Business SB642 Limón et al. Concurrence
Official record: leginfo.legislature.ca.gov