Existing law establishes the Civil Rights Department within the Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency to enforce civil rights laws with respect to housing and employment and to protect and safeguard the right of all persons to obtain and hold employment without discrimination based on specified characteristics or status.

Existing law requires a private employer that has 100 or more employees to submit an annual pay data report to the Civil Rights Department that includes the number of employees by race, ethnicity, and sex in 10 specified job categories, the number of employees by race, ethnicity, and sex whose pay falls within federal pay bands, within each job category the median and mean hourly rate for employees having any combination of those characteristics, and the total number of hours worked by each employee counted in each pay band during the Reporting Year, as specified.

This bill would require an employer to collect and store any demographic information gathered by an employer or labor contractor for the purpose of submitting the pay data report separately from employees personnel records, and, beginning January 1, 2027, increase the number of job categories, as specified above, to 23.

Existing law authorizes the department, if it does not receive the pay data report, to seek an order requiring an employer to comply with these provisions. Existing law provides that upon the request of the department, a court may impose a civil penalty upon any employer for failure to file the required report, which shall be payable to the Civil Rights Enforcement and Litigation Fund.

This bill would require a court to impose a civil penalty against an employer that fails to file the report if requested to do so by the department.

Existing law establishes the Civil Rights Department within the Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency to enforce civil rights laws with respect to housing and employment and to protect and safeguard the right of all persons to obtain and hold employment without discrimination based on specified characteristics or status.

Existing law requires a private employer that has 100 or more employees to submit an annual pay data report to the Civil Rights Department that includes the number of employees by race, ethnicity, and sex in 10 specified job categories, the number of employees by race, ethnicity, and sex whose pay falls within federal pay bands, within each job category the median and mean hourly rate for employees having any combination of those characteristics, and the total number of hours worked by each employee counted in each pay band during the Reporting Year, as specified.

This bill would require an employer to collect and store any demographic information gathered by an employer or labor contractor for the purpose of submitting the pay data report separately from employees personnel records, and, beginning January 1, 2027, increase the number of job categories, as specified above, to 23.

Existing law authorizes the department, if it does not receive the pay data report, to seek an order requiring an employer to comply with these provisions. Existing law provides that upon the request of the department, a court may impose a civil penalty upon any employer for failure to file the required report, which shall be payable to the Civil Rights Enforcement and Litigation Fund.

This bill would require a court to impose a civil penalty against an employer that fails to file the report if requested to do so by the department.

Existing law establishes the Civil Rights Department within the Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency to enforce civil rights laws with respect to housing and employment and to protect and safeguard the right of all persons to obtain and hold employment without discrimination based on specified characteristics or status.

Existing law requires a private employer that has 100 or more employees to submit an annual pay data report to the Civil Rights Department that includes the number of employees by race, ethnicity, and sex in 10 specified job categories, the number of employees by race, ethnicity, and sex whose pay falls within federal pay bands, within each job category the median and mean hourly rate for employees having any combination of those characteristics, and the total number of hours worked by each employee counted in each pay band during the Reporting Year, as specified.

This bill would require an employer to collect and store any demographic information gathered by an employer or labor contractor for the purpose of submitting the pay data report separately from employees personnel records, and, beginning January 1, 2027, increase the number of job categories, as specified above, to 23.

Existing law authorizes the department, if it does not receive the pay data report, to seek an order requiring an employer to comply with these provisions. Existing law provides that upon the request of the department, a court may impose a civil penalty upon any employer for failure to file the required report, which shall be payable to the Civil Rights Enforcement and Litigation Fund.

This bill would require a court to impose a civil penalty against an employer that fails to file the report if requested to do so by the department.

Existing law establishes the Civil Rights Department within the Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency to enforce civil rights laws with respect to housing and employment and to protect and safeguard the right of all persons to obtain and hold employment without discrimination based on specified characteristics or status.

Existing law requires a private employer that has 100 or more employees to submit an annual pay data report to the Civil Rights Department that includes the number of employees by race, ethnicity, and sex in 10 specified job categories, the number of employees by race, ethnicity, and sex whose pay falls within federal pay bands, within each job category the median and mean hourly rate for employees having any combination of those characteristics, and the total number of hours worked by each employee counted in each pay band during the Reporting Year, as specified.

This bill would require an employer to collect and store any demographic information gathered by an employer or labor contractor for the purpose of submitting the pay data report separately from employees personnel records. records, and, beginning January 1, 2027, increase the number of job categories, as specified above, to 23.

Existing law authorizes the department, if it does not receive the pay data report, to seek an order requiring an employer to comply with these provisions. Existing law provides that upon the request of the department, a court may impose a civil penalty upon any employer for failure to file the required report, which shall be payable to the Civil Rights Enforcement and Litigation Fund.

This bill would require a court to impose a civil penalty against an employer that fails to file the report if requested to do so by the department.

Commencing May 2027, this bill would also require public employers with 100 or more employees to submit an annual pay data report with specified information, including specified demographic data provided by employees relative to ethnicity, race, disability, veteran status, and gender, organized by job category as listed in the civil service pay scale, as specified. The bill would define public employer for these purposes to mean an employer of an employee in the state civil service, as provided.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

Existing law establishes the Civil Rights Department within the Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency to enforce civil rights laws with respect to housing and employment and to protect and safeguard the right of all persons to obtain and hold employment without discrimination based on specified characteristics or status.

Existing law requires a private employer that has 100 or more employees to submit an annual pay data report to the Civil Rights Department that includes the number of employees by race, ethnicity, and sex in specified job categories, the number of employees by race, ethnicity, and sex whose pay falls within federal pay bands, and within each job category the median and mean hourly rate for each employees having any combination of those characteristics characteristics, and the total number of hours worked by each employee counted in each pay band during the Reporting Year, as specified.

This bill would require an employer to collect and store any demographic information gathered by an employer or labor contractor for the purpose of submitting the pay data report separately from employees personnel records.

Existing law authorizes the department, if it does not receive the pay data report, to seek an order requiring an employer to comply with these provisions. Existing law provides that upon the request of the department, a court may impose a civil penalty upon any employer for failure to file the required report, which shall be payable to the Civil Rights Enforcement and Litigation Fund.

This bill would require a court to impose a civil penalty against an employer that fails to file the report if requested to do so by the department.

Commencing May 2027, this bill would also require public employers with 100 or more employees to submit an annual pay data report with specified information, including specified demographic data provided by employees relative to ethnicity, race, disability, veteran status, and gender, organized by job category as listed in the civil service pay scale, as specified. The bill would define public employer for these purposes to mean an employer of an employee in the state civil service, as provided.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

Existing law establishes the Civil Rights Department within the Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency to enforce civil rights laws with respect to housing and employment and to protect and safeguard the right of all persons to obtain and hold employment without discrimination based on specified characteristics or status.

Existing law requires a private employer that has 100 or more employees to submit an annual pay data report to the Civil Rights Department that includes the number of employees by race, ethnicity, and sex in specified job categories, whose pay falls within federal pay bands, and within each job category the median and mean hourly rate for each combination of those characteristics as specified.

This bill would require an employer to collect and store any demographic information gathered by an employer or labor contractor for the purpose of submitting the pay data report separately from employees personnel records.

Existing law authorizes the department, if it does not receive the pay data report, to seek an order requiring an employer to comply with these provisions. Existing law provides that upon the request of the department, a court may impose a civil penalty upon any employer for failure to file the required report, which shall be payable to the Civil Rights Enforcement and Litigation Fund.

This bill would require a court to impose a civil penalty against an employer that fails to file the report if requested to do so by the department.

Commencing May 2027, this bill would also require public employers with 100 or more employees to submit an annual pay data report with specified information, including specified demographic data provided by employees relative to ethnicity, race, disability, veteran status, gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation and gender, organized by job category as listed in the civil service pay scale, as specified.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

Existing law establishes the Civil Rights Department within the Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency to enforce civil rights laws with respect to housing and employment and to protect and safeguard the right of all persons to obtain and hold employment without discrimination based on specified characteristics or status.

Existing law requires a private employer that has 100 or more employees to submit an annual pay data report to the Civil Rights Department that includes the number of employees by race, ethnicity, and sex in specified job categories, whose pay falls within federal pay bands, and within each job category the median and mean hourly rate for each combination of those characteristics as specified.

This bill would also require public employers with 100 or more employees to submit the annual pay data report beginning in 2027. The bill would require an employer to collect and store any demographic information it gathers gathered by an employer or labor contractor for the purpose of submitting the pay data report separately from employees personnel records.

This bill would also expand the demographics for the reporting requirements to also include sexual orientation and require the report to include information by sexual orientation about the number of employees in specified job categories, whose pay falls within federal pay bands, and within each job category the median and mean hourly rate for each combination of the specified characteristics. The bill would require that the information regarding an employees or applicants sexual orientation be collected only if voluntarily disclosed by the employee or applicant. employee.

Existing law authorizes the department, if it does not receive the pay data report, to seek an order requiring an employer to comply with these provisions. Existing law provides that upon the request of the department, a court may impose a civil penalty upon any employer for failure to file the required report, which shall be payable to the Civil Rights Enforcement and Litigation Fund.

This bill would require a court to impose a civil penalty against an employer that fails to file the report if requested to do so by the department.

Existing law makes it unlawful for any officer or employee of the department to make public any identifiable information before an investigation or enforcement proceeding involving that information, and then only to the extent necessary for the purposes of that proceeding.

This bill would, notwithstanding that provision, require the department to publish private employer reports provided that the publication is reasonably calculated to prevent the association of any data with any individual person.

Existing law establishes the Civil Rights Department within the Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency to enforce civil rights laws with respect to housing and employment and to protect and safeguard the right of all persons to obtain and hold employment without discrimination based on specified characteristics or status.

Existing law requires a private employer that has 100 or more employees to submit an annual pay data report to the Civil Rights Department that includes the number of employees by race, ethnicity, and sex in specified job categories, whose pay falls within federal pay bands, and within each job category the median and mean hourly rate for each combination of those characteristics as specified.

This bill would also require public employers with 100 or more employees to submit the annual pay data report beginning in 2027. The bill would require an employer to collect and store any demographic information it gathers for the purpose of submitting the pay data report separately from employees personnel records.

This bill would also expand the demographics for the reporting requirements to also include sexual orientation and require the report to include information by sexual orientation about the number of employees in specified job categories, whose pay falls within federal pay bands, and within each job category the median and mean hourly rate for each combination of the specified characteristics. The bill would require that the information regarding an employees or applicants sexual orientation be collected only if voluntarily disclosed by the employee or applicant.

Existing law authorizes the department, if it does not receive the pay data report, to seek an order requiring an employer to comply with these provisions. Existing law provides that upon the request of the department, a court may impose a civil penalty upon any employer for failure to file the required report, which shall be payable to the Civil Rights Enforcement and Litigation Fund.

This bill would require a court to impose a civil penalty against an employer that fails to file the report if requested to do so by the department.

Existing law makes it unlawful for any officer or employee of the department to make public any identifiable information before an investigation or enforcement proceeding involving that information, and then only to the extent necessary for the purposes of that proceeding.

This bill would, notwithstanding that provision, require the department to publish private employer reports provided that the publication is reasonably calculated to prevent the association of any data with any individual person.

 UNFINISHED BUSINESS 

Bill No: SB 464

Author: Smallwood-Cuevas (D), et al.

Amended: 9/5/25

Vote: 21

SENATE LABOR, PUB. EMP. & RET. COMMITTEE: 4-1, 4/23/25

AYES: Smallwood-Cuevas, Cortese, Durazo, Laird

NOES: Strickland

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 11-0, 4/29/25

AYES: Umberg, Allen, Arreguín, Ashby, Caballero, Durazo, Laird, Stern, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Niello, Valladares

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-1, 5/23/25

AYES: Caballero, Cabaldon, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

NOES: Seyarto

NO VOTE RECORDED: Dahle

SENATE FLOOR: 27-9, 6/2/25

AYES: Allen, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Cortese, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Padilla, Pérez, Richardson, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NOES: Alvarado-Gil, Choi, Dahle, Grove, Jones, Ochoa Bogh, Seyarto, Strickland, Valladares

NO VOTE RECORDED: Hurtado, Niello, Reyes, Rubio

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 64-7, 9/9/25 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Employer pay data

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill, for existing pay data reporting requirements of private employers, 1) requires employers to collect and store demographic information gathered separately from employees’ personnel records; and 2) beginning January 1, 2027, increases the number of job categories that employers must report on.

Assembly Amendments

of 9/5/25 1) increase the job categories that employers must report on to provide a more accurate picture of the workforce; and 2) remove the annual pay data and demographic reporting requirements of public employers.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Prohibits an employer from paying any of its employees at wage rates less than the rates paid to employees of the opposite sex for substantially similar work, when viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility, and performed under similar working conditions, except where the employer demonstrates a wage differential based on one or more factors, as specified. (Labor Code §1197.5)
2. Prohibits an employer from paying any of its employees at wage rates less than the rates paid to employees of another race or ethnicity for substantially similar work, when viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility, and performed under similar working conditions, except where the employer demonstrates a wage differential based on one or more factors, as specified. (Labor Code §1197.5)
3. Establishes exceptions to these prohibitions where the employer demonstrates the wage differential is based upon one or more of the following factors:
   1. A seniority system;
   2. A merit system;
   3. A system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production;
   4. A bona fide factor other than sex, such as education, training, or experience which applies only if the employer demonstrates the factor is not based on or derived from a sex-based or race/ethnicity based differential in compensation, is job related, and is consistent with a business necessity, as defined. (Labor Code §1197.5)
4. Makes it a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $10,000 or by imprisonment, or both, for an employer or other person acting either individually or as an officer, agent, or employee of another person to pay or cause to be paid to any employee a wage less than the rate paid to an employee of the opposite sex, race, or ethnicity or who reduces the wages of any employee in order to comply with wage protections for an employee of the opposite sex per Section 1197.5. (Labor Code §1199.5)
5. Requires, on or before the second Wednesday of May of each year, a private employer that has 100 or more employees, as well as a private employer that has 100 or more employee hired through labor contractors, to submit a pay data report to the Civil Rights Department (CRD). The report is required to include, among other things, the following information:
   1. The number of employees by race, ethnicity, and sex in specified job categories, including executive officials, professionals, technicians, laborers and helpers and service workers, among others.
   2. Within each job category, for each combination of race, ethnicity, and sex, the median and mean hourly rate.
   3. The total number of hours worked by each employee, as specified. (Government Code §12999)
6. Authorizes CRD, if the department does not receive the required report from an employer, to seek an order requiring the employer to comply with these requirements and entitles CRD to recover the costs associated with seeking the order for compliance. A court may impose a civil penalty not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) per employee upon any employer who fails to file the required report and not to exceed two hundred dollars ($200) per employee upon any employer for a subsequent failure to file the required report. (Government Code §12999(f))
7. Protects any individually identifiable information submitted to CRD pursuant to these provisions by prohibiting the Department from making submitted information public in any manner and by making this information confidential and not subject to disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act. (Government Code §12999(f)(g))
8. Requires CRD to develop, publish on an annual basis, and publicize aggregate reports based on the data obtained through the employer submitted reports, provided that the aggregated reports are reasonably calculated to prevent the association of any data with any individual business or person. (Government Code §12999(i))

This bill:

1. Revises, and until January 1, 2027 only, existing pay data demographic reporting requirements of private employers to:
   1. Require employers to collect and store any demographic information gathered by an employer or labor contractor for submitting the pay data reports separately from employees’ personnel records.
   2. Require, as opposed to current law that only authorizes, a court to impose a civil penalty against an employer that fails to submit the pay data report if requested to do so by CRD.
2. Beginning January 1, 2027, continues the above changes and expands the pay data reporting requirements to increase the number of job categories that employers must report on to more accurately measure the occupations that workers are employed in. Specifically, the bill expands the job categories to include, among others, the following:
   1. Business and financial operations occupations.
   2. Computer and mathematical occupations.
   3. Community and social science occupations.
   4. Legal occupations.
   5. Educational instruction and library occupations.
   6. Health care practitioners and technical occupations.
   7. Health care support occupations.
   8. Food preparation and serving-related occupations.
   9. Building and ground cleaning and maintenance occupations.
   10. Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations.
   11. Construction and extraction occupations.
   12. Transportation and material moving occupations.

Background

Pay Equity. There have been numerous studies dedicated to calculating disparities in earnings between men and women in the workplace over the last fifty years. In 1963, women who worked full-time year-round made 59 cents on average for every dollar earned by a man according to the American Association of University Women (AAUW). In 2023, women working full time in the United States typically were paid just 83% of what men were paid - $55,240 compared to $66,790 – leaving women and their families at a persistent financial disadvantage.^[1] According to the AAUW, the pay gap challenges grow even more complex for women of color, LGBTQ+ women, and women with disabilities, who face compounded inequities.^[2]

The wage gap is even larger for women of color. As noted by the AAUW, America’s history of slavery, segregation, and immigration policies has created deeply rooted systemic inequalities that persist today. Among women who hold full-time, year-round employment in the United States in 2023, black women earned 66% for every dollar earned by white, non-Hispanic men, while Latinas earned 58% for every dollar. Asian women earned 94% and white, non-Hispanic women earned 80% for every dollar earned by a man.^[3]

In recognition of the pay inequities that continue to plague our country, over the past decade, the California Legislature has passed several efforts attempting to close the gender pay gaps.

Need for this bill? According to the author: “Existing pay data reports have illuminated stark gaps in achievement between Black Californians and that rest of the state. For example, in 2022, for every $1 earned by white families, Black families earn just 58 cents, and just 52 cents for Latino families. These disparities are further exacerbated in the promotion of minority workers to executive or senior level positions. According to 2022 payee data, while white Californians make up 62% of positions at the executive or senior level, Black Californians hold just 4% of these positions.”

[NOTE: Please see the Senate Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee analysis on this bill for more background information and information on prior legislation.]

Related/Prior Legislation

SB 642 (Limon, 2025), among other things, would revise the definition of pay scales for purposes of pay wage transparency and would modify existing law provisions on pay equity to increase the statute of limitations for pay equity claims and strengthen violation provisions.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. Costs of approximately $790,000 in fiscal year (FY) 2026-27 and $781,000 in FY 2027-28 and annually thereafter to CRD to process an additional report covering 220,000 state civil service employees (General Fund (GF)). CRD anticipates using $100,000 to secure an ongoing data services contract, with the remaining funds needed for three additional positions, including two attorneys and a researcher.

Unlike existing law regarding pay data reporting for private employers, this bill does not explicitly authorize CRD to publish aggregate reports based on state employee pay data. CRD would require additional resources for information technology, program staff, and other administrative costs if CRD is expected to publish a report with state employee pay data.

1. Costs of an unknown amount, potentially in the hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, to the California Department of Human Resources (CalHR) to submit an annual pay data report (GF).
2. Cost pressures (GF or Trial Court Trust Fund) of an unknown, but likely minor amount, to the courts in additional workload by requiring, instead of authorizing, a court to impose specified civil penalties.

SUPPORT: (Verified 9/9/25)

Board of Supervisors for the City and County of San Francisco

California Commission on the Status of Women & Girls

California Employment Lawyers Association

California-Hawaii State Conference of the NAACP

Equal Rights Advocates

Greater Sacramento Urban League

OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/9/25)

California Legislative Conference of Plumbing, Heating & Piping Industry

Construction Employers Association

Finishing Contractors Association of Southern California

National Electrical Contractors Association

Northern California Allied Trades

Southern California Contractors Association

Southern California Glass Management Association

Tri-County Chamber Alliance

United Contractors

Valley Industry and Commerce Association

Wall and Ceiling Alliance

Western Line Constructors Chapter

Western Painting and Coating Contractors Association

Western Wall and Ceiling Contractors Association

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The California Employment Lawyers Association is in support and writes: “While existing pay data provides insight into disparities, they do not fully encompass the experience of workers in the public sector, or of LGBTQ+ workers. Furthermore, without access to individual reports, stakeholders are limited in their ability to hold employers accountable to equitable pay practices. With recent threats to DEI programs in both the private and public sector, it is more important than ever to ensure that data is available to the public to ensure accountability to pay equity in the absence of robust enforcement of these crucial programs.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to the Valley Industry and Commerce Association:

“While VICA supports policies that promote workplace equity, this bill goes beyond the appropriate scope of government-mandated reporting and introduces significant administrative, legal, and privacy concerns…Requiring employers to maintain a dual data system creates operational inefficiencies and increases compliance costs…California already has strong anti-discrimination and pay equity laws. SB 464 creates overlapping obligations without demonstrating how additional reporting will meaningfully advance enforcement or equity outcomes. Instead, it places new burdens on employers without clear benefit, while risking employee trust and organizational efficiency.”

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 64-7, 9/9/25

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Connolly, Davies, Elhawary, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Mark González, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Kalra, Krell, Lee, Lowenthal, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Celeste Rodriguez, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

NOES: DeMaio, Ellis, Jeff Gonzalez, Hadwick, Macedo, Patterson, Tangipa

NO VOTE RECORDED: Castillo, Chen, Dixon, Gallagher, Johnson, Lackey, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Ta

Prepared by: Alma Perez-Schwab / L., P.E. & R. / (916) 651-1556

10/14/26 12:20:07

**** END ****

1. American Association of University Women, “The Not So Simple Truth About the Gender Pay Gap,” 2025 Update. https://www.aauw.org/app/uploads/2025/03/The_Simple_Truth_Gender_Pay_Gap_2025_3.28.pdf ↑

2. Ibid. ↑

3. Ibid. ↑

 UNFINISHED BUSINESS  

Bill No: SB 464

Author: Smallwood-Cuevas (D), et al.

Amended: 9/5/25 in Assembly

Vote: 21

SENATE LABOR, PUB. EMP. & RET. COMMITTEE: 4-1, 4/23/25

AYES: Smallwood-Cuevas, Cortese, Durazo, Laird

NOES: Strickland

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 11-0, 4/29/25

AYES: Umberg, Allen, Arreguín, Ashby, Caballero, Durazo, Laird, Stern, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Niello, Valladares

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-1, 5/23/25

AYES: Caballero, Cabaldon, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

NOES: Seyarto

NO VOTE RECORDED: Dahle

SENATE FLOOR: 27-9, 6/2/25

AYES: Allen, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Cortese, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Padilla, Pérez, Richardson, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NOES: Alvarado-Gil, Choi, Dahle, Grove, Jones, Ochoa Bogh, Seyarto, Strickland, Valladares

NO VOTE RECORDED: Hurtado, Niello, Reyes, Rubio

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 49-6, 9/9/25 – Roll call not available.

SUBJECT: Employer pay data

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill, for existing pay data reporting requirements of private employers, 1) requires employers to collect and store demographic information gathered separately from employees’ personnel records; and 2) beginning January 1, 2027, increases the number of job categories that employers must report on.

Assembly Amendments

of 9/5/25 1) increase the job categories that employers must report on to provide a more accurate picture of the workforce; and 2) remove the annual pay data and demographic reporting requirements of public employers.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Prohibits an employer from paying any of its employees at wage rates less than the rates paid to employees of the opposite sex for substantially similar work, when viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility, and performed under similar working conditions, except where the employer demonstrates a wage differential based on one or more factors, as specified. (Labor Code §1197.5)
2. Prohibits an employer from paying any of its employees at wage rates less than the rates paid to employees of another race or ethnicity for substantially similar work, when viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility, and performed under similar working conditions, except where the employer demonstrates a wage differential based on one or more factors, as specified. (Labor Code §1197.5)
3. Establishes exceptions to these prohibitions where the employer demonstrates the wage differential is based upon one or more of the following factors:
   1. A seniority system;
   2. A merit system;
   3. A system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production;
   4. A bona fide factor other than sex, such as education, training, or experience which applies only if the employer demonstrates the factor is not based on or derived from a sex-based or race/ethnicity based differential in compensation, is job related, and is consistent with a business necessity, as defined. (Labor Code §1197.5)
4. Makes it a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $10,000 or by imprisonment, or both, for an employer or other person acting either individually or as an officer, agent, or employee of another person to pay or cause to be paid to any employee a wage less than the rate paid to an employee of the opposite sex, race, or ethnicity or who reduces the wages of any employee in order to comply with wage protections for an employee of the opposite sex per Section 1197.5. (Labor Code §1199.5)
5. Requires, on or before the second Wednesday of May of each year, a private employer that has 100 or more employees, as well as a private employer that has 100 or more employee hired through labor contractors, to submit a pay data report to the Civil Rights Department (CRD). The report is required to include, among other things, the following information:
   1. The number of employees by race, ethnicity, and sex in specified job categories, including executive officials, professionals, technicians, laborers and helpers and service workers, among others.
   2. Within each job category, for each combination of race, ethnicity, and sex, the median and mean hourly rate.
   3. The total number of hours worked by each employee, as specified. (Government Code §12999)
6. Authorizes CRD, if the department does not receive the required report from an employer, to seek an order requiring the employer to comply with these requirements and entitles CRD to recover the costs associated with seeking the order for compliance. A court may impose a civil penalty not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) per employee upon any employer who fails to file the required report and not to exceed two hundred dollars ($200) per employee upon any employer for a subsequent failure to file the required report. (Government Code §12999(f))
7. Protects any individually identifiable information submitted to CRD pursuant to these provisions by prohibiting the Department from making submitted information public in any manner and by making this information confidential and not subject to disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act. (Government Code §12999(f)(g))
8. Requires CRD to develop, publish on an annual basis, and publicize aggregate reports based on the data obtained through the employer submitted reports, provided that the aggregated reports are reasonably calculated to prevent the association of any data with any individual business or person. (Government Code §12999(i))

This bill:

1. Revises, and until January 1, 2027 only, existing pay data demographic reporting requirements of private employers to:
   1. Require employers to collect and store any demographic information gathered by an employer or labor contractor for submitting the pay data reports separately from employees’ personnel records.
   2. Require, as opposed to current law that only authorizes, a court to impose a civil penalty against an employer that fails to submit the pay data report if requested to do so by CRD.
2. Beginning January 1, 2027, continues the above changes and expands the pay data reporting requirements to increase the number of job categories that employers must report on to more accurately measure the occupations that workers are employed in. Specifically, the bill expands the job categories to include, among others, the following:
   1. Business and financial operations occupations.
   2. Computer and mathematical occupations.
   3. Community and social science occupations.
   4. Legal occupations.
   5. Educational instruction and library occupations.
   6. Health care practitioners and technical occupations.
   7. Health care support occupations.
   8. Food preparation and serving-related occupations.
   9. Building and ground cleaning and maintenance occupations.
   10. Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations.
   11. Construction and extraction occupations.
   12. Transportation and material moving occupations.

Background

Pay Equity. There have been numerous studies dedicated to calculating disparities in earnings between men and women in the workplace over the last fifty years. In 1963, women who worked full-time year-round made 59 cents on average for every dollar earned by a man according to the American Association of University Women (AAUW). In 2023, women working full time in the United States typically were paid just 83% of what men were paid - $55,240 compared to $66,790 – leaving women and their families at a persistent financial disadvantage.^[1] According to the AAUW, the pay gap challenges grow even more complex for women of color, LGBTQ+ women, and women with disabilities, who face compounded inequities.^[2]

The wage gap is even larger for women of color. As noted by the AAUW, America’s history of slavery, segregation, and immigration policies has created deeply rooted systemic inequalities that persist today. Among women who hold full-time, year-round employment in the United States in 2023, black women earned 66% for every dollar earned by white, non-Hispanic men, while Latinas earned 58% for every dollar. Asian women earned 94% and white, non-Hispanic women earned 80% for every dollar earned by a man.^[3]

In recognition of the pay inequities that continue to plague our country, over the past decade, the California Legislature has passed several efforts attempting to close the gender pay gaps.

Need for this bill? According to the author: “Existing pay data reports have illuminated stark gaps in achievement between Black Californians and that rest of the state. For example, in 2022, for every $1 earned by white families, Black families earn just 58 cents, and just 52 cents for Latino families. These disparities are further exacerbated in the promotion of minority workers to executive or senior level positions. According to 2022 payee data, while white Californians make up 62% of positions at the executive or senior level, Black Californians hold just 4% of these positions.”

[NOTE: Please see the Senate Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee analysis on this bill for more background information and information on prior legislation.]

Related/Prior Legislation

SB 642 (Limon, 2025), among other things, would revise the definition of pay scales for purposes of pay wage transparency and would modify existing law provisions on pay equity to increase the statute of limitations for pay equity claims and strengthen violation provisions.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. Costs of approximately $790,000 in fiscal year (FY) 2026-27 and $781,000 in FY 2027-28 and annually thereafter to CRD to process an additional report covering 220,000 state civil service employees (General Fund (GF)). CRD anticipates using $100,000 to secure an ongoing data services contract, with the remaining funds needed for three additional positions, including two attorneys and a researcher.

Unlike existing law regarding pay data reporting for private employers, this bill does not explicitly authorize CRD to publish aggregate reports based on state employee pay data. CRD would require additional resources for information technology, program staff, and other administrative costs if CRD is expected to publish a report with state employee pay data.

1. Costs of an unknown amount, potentially in the hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, to the California Department of Human Resources (CalHR) to submit an annual pay data report (GF).
2. Cost pressures (GF or Trial Court Trust Fund) of an unknown, but likely minor amount, to the courts in additional workload by requiring, instead of authorizing, a court to impose specified civil penalties.

SUPPORT: (Verified 9/9/25)

Board of Supervisors for the City and County of San Francisco

California Commission on the Status of Women & Girls

California Employment Lawyers Association

California-Hawaii State Conference of the NAACP

Equal Rights Advocates

Greater Sacramento Urban League

OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/9/25)

California Legislative Conference of Plumbing, Heating & Piping Industry

Construction Employers Association

Finishing Contractors Association of Southern California

National Electrical Contractors Association

Northern California Allied Trades

Southern California Contractors Association

Southern California Glass Management Association

Tri-County Chamber Alliance

United Contractors

Valley Industry and Commerce Association

Wall and Ceiling Alliance

Western Line Constructors Chapter

Western Painting and Coating Contractors Association

Western Wall and Ceiling Contractors Association

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:

The California Employment Lawyers Association is in support and writes: “While existing pay data provides insight into disparities, they do not fully encompass the experience of workers in the public sector, or of LGBTQ+ workers. Furthermore, without access to individual reports, stakeholders are limited in their ability to hold employers accountable to equitable pay practices. With recent threats to DEI programs in both the private and public sector, it is more important than ever to ensure that data is available to the public to ensure accountability to pay equity in the absence of robust enforcement of these crucial programs.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:

According to the Valley Industry and Commerce Association:

“While VICA supports policies that promote workplace equity, this bill goes beyond the appropriate scope of government-mandated reporting and introduces significant administrative, legal, and privacy concerns…Requiring employers to maintain a dual data system creates operational inefficiencies and increases compliance costs…California already has strong anti-discrimination and pay equity laws. SB 464 creates overlapping obligations without demonstrating how additional reporting will meaningfully advance enforcement or equity outcomes. Instead, it places new burdens on employers without clear benefit, while risking employee trust and organizational efficiency.”

Prepared by: Alma Perez-Schwab / L., P.E. & R. / (916) 651-1556

9/9/25 14:07:17

**** END ****

1. American Association of University Women, “The Not So Simple Truth About the Gender Pay Gap,” 2025 Update. https://www.aauw.org/app/uploads/2025/03/The_Simple_Truth_Gender_Pay_Gap_2025_3.28.pdf ↑

2. Ibid. ↑

3. Ibid. ↑

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 464

Author:(Smallwood-Cuevas)

As Amended Ver:September 5, 2025

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Replaces, beginning January 1, 2027, the 10 job categories for annual pay data reporting with 23 job categories and makes a court's imposition of a civil penalty per employee for an employer's failure to file the annual pay data report mandatory rather than permissive if a penalty is requested by the Civil Rights Department (CRD).

Major Provisions

1. Adds to existing private employer pay data obligations the requirement that any demographic information gathered by an employer or labor contractor shall be collected and stored separately from employees' personnel records.
2. Replaces, beginning January 1, 2027, the 10 job categories for pay data reporting with the following:
   1. Chief executives
   2. Management occupations, except chief executives
   3. Business and financial operations occupations
   4. Computer and mathematical occupations
   5. Architecture and engineering occupations
   6. Life, physical, and social science occupations
   7. Community and social service occupations
   8. Legal occupations
   9. Educational instruction and library occupations
   10. Arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media occupations
   11. Health care practitioners and technical occupations
   12. Health care support occupations
   13. Protective service occupations
   14. Food preparation and serving-related occupations
   15. Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations
   16. Personal care and service occupations
   17. Sales and related occupations
   18. Office and administrative support occupations
   19. Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations
   20. Construction and extraction occupations
   21. Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations
   22. Production occupations
   23. Transportation and material moving occupations
3. Makes a court's imposition of a civil penalty per employee for an employer's failure to file the annual pay data report mandatory rather than permissive if a penalty has been requested by the CRD.

COMMENTS

A number of studies demonstrate that the fight for pay equity among California's diverse workforce continues despite some of the nation's strongest pay data reporting measures. For example, in 2023, for every $1 dollar earned by white families, Black families earn just 63 cents, and Latino families fair worse earning just 52 cents.^[1] In addition, occupational segregation based on race is still a significant problem. According to pay data reported to the CRD in 2022, white Californians make up over 60% of positions at the executive or senior level while Black Californians hold just 4% of these positions.^[2]

According to the Author

According to the author, "SB 464 is a priority bill in the California Legislative Black Caucus' 2025, Road to Repair Package. On June 29, 2023, the Task Force to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African Americans issued its final report to the California Legislature. In their report, the Task Force offers recommendation to remedy longstanding income inequality, specifically enhancing pay data reporting requirements. Furthermore, SB 464 will expand reported job categories and salary reporting to better reflect our state's large and diverse workforce."

Arguments in Support

The California Employment Lawyers and Equal Rights Advocates are in support and state, "[the Task Force to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African Americans] recommended a slate of measures…Specifically, the Task Force recommends enhancing annual payee data reporting requirements to ensure greater transparency and accountability in employment decisions."

Arguments in Opposition

The Valley Industry and Commerce Association is opposed and states, "California already has strong anti-discrimination and pay equity laws. SB 464 creates overlapping obligations without demonstrating how additional reporting will meaningfully advance enforcement or equity outcomes. Instead, it places new burdens on employers without clear benefit, while risking employee trust and organizational efficiency."

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee,

1. Costs of approximately $790,000 in fiscal year (FY) 2026-27 and $781,000 in FY 2027-28 and annually thereafter to CRD to process an additional report covering 220,000 state civil service employees (General Fund (GF)). CRD anticipates using $100,000 to secure an ongoing data services contract, with the remaining funds needed for three additional positions, including two attorneys and a researcher.

Unlike existing law regarding pay data reporting for private employers, this bill does not explicitly authorize CRD to publish aggregate reports based on state employee pay data. CRD would require additional resources for information technology, program staff, and other administrative costs if CRD is expected to publish a report with state employee pay data.

1. Costs of an unknown amount, potentially in the hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, to the California Department of Human Resources (CalHR) to submit an annual pay data report (GF).
2. Cost pressures (GF or Trial Court Trust Fund) of an unknown, but likely minor amount, to the courts in additional workload by requiring, instead of authorizing, a court to impose specified civil penalties.

VOTES

SENATE FLOOR: 27-9-4

YES: Allen, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Cortese, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Padilla, Pérez, Richardson, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NO: Alvarado-Gil, Choi, Dahle, Grove, Jones, Ochoa Bogh, Seyarto, Strickland, Valladares

ABS, ABST OR NV: Hurtado, Niello, Reyes, Rubio

ASM LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT: 7-0-0

YES: Ortega, Flora, Chen, Elhawary, Kalra, Lee, Ward

ASM JUDICIARY: 10-2-0

YES: Kalra, Hart, Bryan, Connolly, Harabedian, Pacheco, Papan, Sanchez, Stefani, Zbur

NO: Dixon, Macedo

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-1-3

YES: Wicks, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Elhawary, Fong, Mark González, Ahrens, Pacheco, Pellerin, Solache

NO: Tangipa

ABS, ABST OR NV: Sanchez, Dixon, Ta

UPDATED

VERSION: September 5, 2025

CONSULTANT: Megan Lane / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091 FN: 0001758

1. Thorman, Tess and Payares-Montoya, Daniel, "Income Inequality in California," Public Policy Institute of California, March 2025. ↑

2. Pay and Demographics of California Workers: Results from Annual Pay Data Reports: 2022. California Civil Rights Department.

   ↑

SENATE THIRD READING

STR Bill Id:SB 464

Author:(Smallwood-Cuevas)

As Amended Ver:September 02, 2025

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Requires a public employer, as defined, that has 100 or more employees to, on or before the second Wednesday of May 2027, and on or before the second Wednesday of May of each year thereafter, submit a pay data report with demographic information regarding an employee's ethnicity, race, disability, veteran status, and gender to the Civil Rights Department (CRD) covering the prior calendar year.

Major Provisions

1. Adds to existing private employer pay data obligations the requirement that any demographic information gathered by an employer or labor contractor shall be collected and stored separately from employees' personnel records.
2. Replaces, beginning January 1, 2027, the 10 job categories for pay data reporting with the following:
   1. Executive and senior level officials and managers
   2. First or mid-level officials and managers
   3. Business and financial operations occupations
   4. Computer and mathematical occupations
   5. Architecture and engineering occupations
   6. Life, physical, and social science occupations
   7. Community and social service occupations
   8. Legal occupations
   9. Educational instruction and library occupations
   10. Arts, design, entertainment, sports, and media occupations
   11. Health care practitioners and technical occupations
   12. Health care support occupations
   13. Protective service occupations
   14. Food preparation and serving-related occupations
   15. Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance occupations
   16. Personal care and service occupations
   17. Sales and related occupations
   18. Office and administrative support occupations
   19. Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations
   20. Construction and extraction occupations
   21. Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations
   22. Production occupations
   23. Transportation and material moving occupations
3. Makes a court's imposition of a civil penalty per employee for an employer's failure to file the annual pay data report mandatory rather than permissive.
4. Requires a public employer that has 100 or more employees to, on or before the second Wednesday of May 2027, and on or before the second Wednesday of May of each year thereafter, submit a pay data report to the CRD covering the prior calendar year.
5. Requires the pay data report to include demographic data provided by employees relative to ethnicity, race, disability, veteran status, and gender organized by job category as listed in the civil service pay scale.
6. Requires demographic data submitted to the CRD pursuant to 4-5) above to disclose only aggregated statistical data and shall not identify any individual.
7. Requires any individually identifiable information submitted to the CRD to be considered confidential information and not subject to disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act.
8. Provides that for purposes of public employer pay data reporting, the following definitions shall apply:
   1. "Employee" means a person employed in the state "civil service," as that phrase is defined in Article VII of the Constitution.
   2. "Public employer" means the employer of an employee in the state "civil service," as that phrase is defined in Article VII of the Constitution. "Public employer" does not include a local agency, as defined.

COMMENTS

A number of studies demonstrate that the fight for pay equity among California's diverse workforce continues despite some of the nation's strongest pay data reporting measures. For example, in 2023, for every $1 dollar earned by white families, Black families earn just 63 cents, and Latino families fair worse earning just 52 cents.^[1] In addition, occupational segregation based on race is still a significant problem. According to pay data reported to the CRD in 2022, white Californians make up over 60% of positions at the executive or senior level while Black Californians hold just 4% of these positions.^[2]

According to the Author

According to the author, "SB 464 is a priority bill in the California Legislative Black Caucus' 2025, Road to Repair Package. On June 29, 2023, the Task Force to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African Americans issued its final report to the California Legislature. In their report, the Task Force offers recommendation to remedy longstanding income inequality, specifically enhancing pay data reporting requirements. To ensure greater transparency and accountability, SB 464 will expand existing reporting requirements in Government Code Section 12999 to specified public sector employees. Furthermore, SB 464 will expand reported job categories and salary reporting to better reflect our state's large and diverse workforce."

Arguments in Support

The California Employment Lawyers Association and Equal Rights Advocates are in support and state, "While existing pay data provides insight into disparities, they do not extend to workers in the public sector. Requiring this pay data will help public employers assess trends of occupational segregation, prompting public employers to make changes to their hiring, pay, or promotional practices to ensure better representation of women and people of color at all wage levels."

Arguments in Opposition

The Valley Industry and Commerce Association is opposed and states, "California already has strong anti-discrimination and pay equity laws. SB 464 creates overlapping obligations without demonstrating how additional reporting will meaningfully advance enforcement or equity outcomes. Instead, it places new burdens on employers without clear benefit, while risking employee trust and organizational efficiency."

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee,

1. Costs of approximately $790,000 in fiscal year (FY) 2026-27 and $781,000 in FY 2027-28 and annually thereafter to CRD to process an additional report covering 220,000 state civil service employees (General Fund (GF)). CRD anticipates using $100,000 to secure an ongoing data services contract, with the remaining funds needed for three additional positions, including two attorneys and a researcher.

Unlike existing law regarding pay data reporting for private employers, this bill does not explicitly authorize CRD to publish aggregate reports based on state employee pay data. CRD would require additional resources for information technology, program staff, and other administrative costs if CRD is expected to publish a report with state employee pay data.

1. Costs of an unknown amount, potentially in the hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, to the California Department of Human Resources (CalHR) to submit an annual pay data report (GF).
2. Cost pressures (GF or Trial Court Trust Fund) of an unknown, but likely minor amount, to the courts in additional workload by requiring, instead of authorizing, a court to impose specified civil penalties.

VOTES

SENATE FLOOR: 27-9-4

YES: Allen, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Cortese, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Padilla, Pérez, Richardson, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NO: Alvarado-Gil, Choi, Dahle, Grove, Jones, Ochoa Bogh, Seyarto, Strickland, Valladares

ABS, ABST OR NV: Hurtado, Niello, Reyes, Rubio

ASM LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT: 7-0-0

YES: Ortega, Flora, Chen, Elhawary, Kalra, Lee, Ward

ASM JUDICIARY: 10-2-0

YES: Kalra, Hart, Bryan, Connolly, Harabedian, Pacheco, Papan, Sanchez, Stefani, Zbur

NO: Dixon, Macedo

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 11-1-3

YES: Wicks, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Elhawary, Fong, Mark González, Ahrens, Pacheco, Pellerin, Solache

NO: Tangipa

ABS, ABST OR NV: Sanchez, Dixon, Ta

UPDATED

VERSION: September 02, 2025

CONSULTANT: Megan Lane / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091 FN: 0001434

1. Thorman, Tess and Payares-Montoya, Daniel, "Income Inequality in California," Public Policy Institute of California, March 2025. ↑

2. Pay and Demographics of California Workers: Results from Annual Pay Data Reports: 2022. California Civil Rights Department.

   ↑

Date of Hearing: August 20, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 464

Author:(Smallwood-Cuevas) – As Amended Ver:July 10, 2025

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill requires the state to submit an annual pay data report containing specified demographic data of state civil service employees to the Civil Rights Department (CRD).

This bill also modifies the existing pay data reporting requirement for a private employer with 100 or more employees by requiring such information be collected and stored separately from employee personnel records and requiring, instead of authorizing, a court to impose a civil penalty for failure to file upon CRD’s request.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Costs of approximately $790,000 in fiscal year (FY) 2026-27 and $781,000 in FY 2027-28 and annually thereafter to CRD to process an additional report covering 220,000 state civil service employees (General Fund (GF)). CRD anticipates using $100,000 to secure an ongoing data services contract, with the remaining funds needed for three additional positions, including two attorneys and a researcher.

Unlike existing law regarding pay data reporting for private employers, this bill does not explicitly authorize CRD to publish aggregate reports based on state employee pay data. CRD would require additional resources for information technology, program staff, and other administrative costs if CRD is expected to publish a report with state employee pay data.

1. Costs of an unknown amount, potentially in the hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, to the California Department of Human Resources (CalHR) to submit an annual pay data report (GF).
2. Cost pressures (GF or Trial Court Trust Fund) of an unknown, but likely minor amount, to the courts in additional workload by requiring, instead of authorizing, a court to impose specified civil penalties.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

In June of 2023, the Task Force to study and develop Reparation Proposals for African Americans issued its final report to the California Legislature and proposed comprehensive reparations plan pursuant to AB 3121 (2020). As part of the Task Force’s policy proposals to address the long lasting implications of stolen labor (Chapter 20 and Chapter 27), the Task Force called upon the legislature to adopt policies to enhance pay equity data reporting. SB 464 furthers the recommendations of the Task Force’s report by expanding reporting requirements to specified public employers. This bill is part of the 2025 California Legislative Black Caucus Road to Repair Package.

1. Background. Private Pay Data Reports. SB 973 (Jackson), Chapter 363, Statutes of 2020, required an employer with over 100 employees already filing a federal EEO-1 Report to submit an annual pay data report to CRD, which CRD may publicize in the aggregate to shed light on any workplace pay disparities based on race, ethnicity and sex. SB 1162 (Limon), Chapter 559, Statutes of 2022, expanded SB 973’s reporting requirements to include all private employers with over 100 employees, as well as a separate report if the private employer has over 100 employees hired through labor contractors. This bill requires a private employer to collect and store pay data separately from employee personnel records and requires, upon CRD’s request, a court to impose a civil penalty against an employer that fails to file a report.

Existing State Employee Demographic Reports. The California Constitution provides that the civil service includes every officer and employee of the state, with certain personnel exempt from civil service, such as employees of the Legislature or courts, select employees of an elected officer, and officers directly appointed by the Governor. Existing law requires the state to collect or report certain civil service employee demographic information related to ethnicity, race, disability, veteran status, and gender, as follows:

1. Government Code Section 8310.6 requires, to the extent possible, the State Controller’s Office and CalHR to collect and report information on Black or African American persons hired for state positions that reflects whether they are a descendent of an enslaved person in the United States or a descendent of another demographic.
2. Government Code Section 11019.12 requires certain state agencies to provide an opportunity for applicants to self-report veteran status or affiliation.
3. Government Code Section 19233 requires CalHR to survey the number of state employees with a disability in each state agency, including job category and salary range.
4. Government Code Section 19704 authorizes the post-hire collection of a state employee’s ethnic, marital status, and gender data for research and statistical purposes.
5. Government Code Section 19792 requires CalHR to maintain data to determine equal employment opportunity within state civil service, including data to determine the underutilization of groups based on race, ethnicity, gender, disability, and veteran status, analyzed by job classifications, locations, separations, salaries, and other conditions of employment.
6. Government Code Section 19799 requires a state agency conducting a demographic survey of employees to use separate collection categories for each major Asian and Pacific Islander group.

This bill requires, beginning May 2027, a state civil service employer with 100 or more state civil service employees to submit an annual pay data report covering the prior calendar year to CRD. The report must include the demographic data provided by employees pursuant to the above-described code sections organized by job category as listed in the civil service pay scale. However, unlike the pay data reports submitted by private employers, this bill does not authorize CRD to subsequently publish a public-facing report analyzing state employee pay data, nor does this bill authorize CRD to seek an order requiring employer compliance if CRD does not receive the report, among other differences.

1. Support and Opposition. This bill is supported by civil rights groups, the California Employment Lawyers Association, and the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls, with the latter arguing, “With recent threats to DEI programs in both the private and public sector, it is more important than ever to ensure that data is available to the public to ensure accountability to pay equity in the absence of robust enforcement of these crucial programs.”

This bill is opposed by construction employer associations and the Valley Industry and Commerce Association, with the latter arguing “this bill goes beyond the appropriate scope of government-mandated reporting and introduces significant administrative, legal, and privacy concerns.” However, opponents’ arguments against this bill’s specific provisions appear to reflect a previous version of this bill.

Analysis Prepared by: Irene Ho / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: June 25, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

Liz Ortega, Chair

SBPCA Bill Id:SB 464

Author:(Smallwood-Cuevas) – As Amended Ver:May 1, 2025

SENATE VOTE: 27-9

SUBJECT: Employer pay data

SUMMARY: Requires a public employer, as defined, that has 100 or more employees to, on or before the second Wednesday of May 2027, and on or before the second Wednesday of May of each year thereafter, submit a pay data report with demographic information regarding an employee’s ethnicity, race, disability, veteran status, and gender to the Civil Rights Department (CRD) covering the prior calendar year. Specifically, this bill:

1. Adds to existing private employer pay data obligations the requirement that any demographic information gathered by an employer or labor contractor shall be collected and stored separately from employees’ personnel records.
2. Makes a court’s imposition of a civil penalty per employee for an employer’s failure to file the annual pay data report mandatory rather than permissive.
3. Requires a public employer that has 100 or more employees to, on or before the second Wednesday of May 2027, and on or before the second Wednesday of May of each year thereafter, submit a pay data report to the CRD covering the prior calendar year.
4. Requires the pay data report to include demographic data provided by employees relative to ethnicity, race, disability, veteran status, and gender organized by job category as listed in the civil service pay scale.
5. Requires demographic data submitted to the CRD pursuant to 3-4) above to disclose only aggregated statistical data and shall not identify any individual.
6. Requires any individually identifiable information submitted to the CRD to be considered confidential information and not subject to disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act.
7. Provides that for purposes of public employer pay data reporting, the following definitions shall apply:
   1. “Employee” means a person employed in the state “civil service,” as that phrase is defined in Article VII of the Constitution.
   2. “Public employer” means the employer of an employee in the state “civil service,” as that phrase is defined in Article VII of the Constitution.

EXISTING STATE LAW:

1. Requires, on or before the second Wednesday of May 2023, and on or before the second Wednesday of May of each year thereafter, a private employer that has 100 or more employees to submit a pay data report to the CRD covering the prior calendar year (reporting year). Government Code §12999 (a)(1).
2. Requires, on or before the second Wednesday of May 2023, and on or before the second Wednesday of May of each year thereafter, a private employer that has 100 or more employees hired through labor contractors within the prior calendar year to submit a separate pay data report to the CRD covering the employees hired through labor contractors in the prior calendar year. The private employer shall also disclose on the pay data report the ownership names of all labor contractors used to supply employees. Government Code §12999 (a)(2).
3. Requires the pay data report to include the following information:
   1. The number of employees by race, ethnicity, and sex in each of the following job categories:
      1. Executive or senior level officials and managers.
      2. First or mid-level officials and managers.
      3. Professionals.
      4. Technicians.
      5. Sales workers.
      6. Administrative support workers.
      7. Craft workers.
      8. Operatives.
      9. Laborers and helpers.
      10. Service workers.
   2. The number of employees by race, ethnicity, and sex, whose annual earnings fall within each of the pay bands used by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Occupational Employment Statistics survey.
   3. Within each job category, for each combination of race, ethnicity, and sex, the median and mean hourly rate.
   4. For purposes of establishing the numbers required to be reported under 3) a) above, an employer shall create a “snapshot” that counts all of the individuals in each job category by race, ethnicity, and sex, employed during a single pay period of the employer’s choice between October 1 and December 31 of the reporting year.
   5. For purposes of establishing the numbers to be reported under 3) b-c) above, the employer shall calculate the total earnings, as shown on the Internal Revenue Service Form W-2, for each employee in the “snapshot,” for the entire reporting year, regardless of whether or not an employee worked for the full calendar year. The employer shall tabulate and report the number of employees whose W-2 earnings during the reporting year fell within each pay band.
   6. The employer shall include in the report the total number of hours worked by each employee counted in each pay band during the reporting year.
   7. The report shall include the employer’s North American Industry Classification System code. Government Code §12999 (b)(1-7).
4. Authorizes, if the CRD does not receive the required report from an employer, the CRD to seek an order requiring the employer to comply with these requirements and shall be entitled to recover the costs associated with seeking the order for compliance. Upon request by the CRD, a court may impose a civil penalty not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) per employee upon any employer who fails to file the required report and not to exceed two hundred dollars ($200) per employee upon any employer for a subsequent failure to file the required report. Government Code §12999 (f).
5. Authorizes the CRD to develop, publish on an annual basis, and publicize aggregate reports based on the data obtained pursuant to their authority, as specified. Government Code §12999 (i).
6. Defines “employee” to mean an individual on an employer’s payroll, including a part-time individual, and for whom the employer is required to withhold federal social security taxes from that individual’s wages. Government Code §12999 (k)(1).
7. Defines “labor contractor” to mean an individual or entity that supplies, either with or without a contract, a client employer with workers to perform labor within the client employer’s usual course of business. Government Code §12999 (k)(2).

EXISTING FEDERAL LAW

Requires every employer with 100 or more employees that is covered by Title VII, to file annually with the EEOC, demographic information about its employees in the Standard Form 100, as revised (known as the EEO-1 Report). 29 CFR Part 1602 Subpart B. § 1602.7

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee,

• CRD indicates that it would incur General Fund costs of $790,000 in 2026-27, and $781,000 annually thereafter, to implement the provisions of the bill.

• Administrative costs to the California Department of Human Resources (CalHR) have yet to be identified, but minimally would be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars annually (General Fund).

COMMENTS: This bill is double referred to the Assembly Judiciary Committee upon passage out of this Committee.

A number of studies demonstrate that the fight for pay equity among California’s diverse workforce continues despite some of the nation’s strongest pay data reporting measures. For example, in 2023, for every $1 dollar earned by white families, Black families earn just 63 cents, and Latino families fair worse earning just 52 cents.^[1] In addition, occupational segregation based on race is still a significant problem. According to pay data reported to the CRD in 2022, white Californians make up over 60% of positions at the executive or senior level while Black Californians hold just 4% of these positions.^[2]

This measure builds upon SB 973 (Jackson) of 2020, which required employers that submit an EEO-1 as required by federal law to also submit an annual pay data report to the CRD. CRD was then authorized to develop and publicize aggregate reports based on employers’ pay data. In March of 2022, CRD released its first pay data report, which found, among other things, that women and Hispanic/Latino and Black/African American workers are overrepresented in the lowest pay bands. In addition, while SB 1162 (Limon) of 2022 added the requirement that employers also annually report the pay data for contracted employees, our state pay data reporting requirements lack the specificity necessary to identify pay equity gaps and inform and provide policy makers with the data they need to pursue appropriate legislative solutions.

Recent research that reviewed the utility of EEO-1 data collected by the federal government based on the same 12 pay bands used under California’s pay data reporting law found the pay bands to be overly broad, leading to a “lack of variation in pay and compromising the enforcement utility^[3]” of the data for the EEOC, particularly when trying to calculate pay gaps at targeted establishments. Furthermore, the same research concluded that the job categories used in pay data reporting were similarly too broad and tended to encompass a swath of job responsibilities and pay rates.^[4] This deficiency is hindering federal investigators ability to determine whether some workers experience pay disparities. Committee staff is informed that the author plans to amend the bill subsequent to this committee to refine the pay reporting to actual annual earnings and expand the job categories.

According to the author, “SB 464 is a priority bill in the California Legislative Black Caucus’ 2025, Road to Repair Package. On June 29, 2023, the Task Force to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African Americans issued its final report to the California Legislature. In their report, the Task Force offers recommendation to remedy longstanding income inequality, specifically enhancing pay data reporting requirements. To ensure greater transparency and accountability, SB 464 will expand existing reporting requirements in Government Code Section 12999 to specified public sector employees. Furthermore, SB 464 will expand reported job categories and salary reporting to better reflect our state’s large and diverse workforce.”

The author continues, “For decades, pay disparities have plagued Black and brown Californians in the workplace. While the state has taken several steps to limit pay disparities and create real opportunities for upward mobility, we don’t know what we don’t track. That is why California Legislative Black Caucus has made enhancing and expanding pay equity data reporting a top priority. SB 464 promotes equity and maximizes benefits for underserved communities by ensuring that we have the most accurate data when we are track Californian’s progress in the workplace.”

Arguments in Support

The California Employment Lawyers Association and Equal Rights Advocates are in support and state, “While existing pay data provides insight into disparities, they do not extend to workers in the public sector. Requiring this pay data will help public employers assess trends of occupational segregation, prompting public employers to make changes to their hiring, pay, or promotional practices to ensure better representation of women and people of color at all wage levels.”

Arguments in Opposition

The Valley Industry and Commerce Association is opposed and states, “California already has strong anti-discrimination and pay equity laws. SB 464 creates overlapping obligations without demonstrating how additional reporting will meaningfully advance enforcement or equity outcomes. Instead, it places new burdens on employers without clear benefit, while risking employee trust and organizational efficiency.”

The California State Association of Counties, League of California Cities, California Special Districts Association, Urban Counties of California and Rural County Representatives of California are opposed unless amended due to their request to be exempt under the bill and state, “the current bill language could require a portion of counties, and a portion of their workforce, to conduct the annual pay data report. This means the bill would impose a new reporting requirement on 25 of the state’s smallest, most rural counties; most of which lack the resources of the larger counties that would be excluded from the bill’s requirements.

The May 1 amendments narrow the definition of a “public employer,” to “…the employer of an employee in the state ‘civil service,’ as that phrase is defined in Article VII of the Constitution.” While Article VII does not, in fact, define “civil service,” the term is often used to refer to not only the state workforce, but also segments of the local workforce whose positions are funded in part by the federal government for social services and child welfare programs, a system known as the Merit System Services Program (MSS). Those positions are subject to State personnel standards administered by CalHR and 25 counties are required to have their MSS program administered by CalHR. The language in SB 464 is unclear as to whether or not the bill applies to MSS employees and could be interpreted to require reporting by counties for those employees.”

Related and Prior Legislation

SB 642 (Limon) of 2025 revises state pay transparency and pay discrimination laws to provide, among other things, a narrower definition of “pay scale” for job postings, a three-year statute of limitations for pay discrimination claims, and recovery of lost wages up to ten years. This measure is pending in this committee.

SB 1162 (Limon) Chapter 559, Statutes of 2022 expanded, among other things, pay data reporting requirements to cover contracted employees and required employers to make pay scale information for positions available to employees and included in job postings.

SB 973 (Jackson) Chapter 363, Statutes of 2020 required employers with 100 or more employees to provide the DFEH with specified EEO-1 data.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Employment Lawyers Association
California-Hawaii State Conference of the NAACP
Equal Rights Advocates
Greater Sacramento Urban League

Opposition

Valley Industry and Commerce Association (VICA)

Oppose Unless Amended

California Special Districts Association
California State Association of Counties (CSAC)
League of California Cities
Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC)
Urban Counties of California (UCC)

Analysis Prepared by: Megan Lane / L. & E. /

1. Thorman, Tess and Payares-Montoya, Daniel, “Income Inequality in California,” Public Policy Institute of California, March 2025. ↑

2. Pay and Demographics of California Workers: Results from Annual Pay Data Reports: 2022. California Civil Rights Department.

   ↑

3. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Evaluation of Compensation Data Collected Through the EEO-1 Form. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26581, p. 295. ↑

4. Ibid. at 296. ↑

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: SB 464

Author: Smallwood-Cuevas (D), et al.

Amended: 5/1/25

Vote: 21

SENATE LABOR, PUB. EMP. & RET. COMMITTEE: 4-1, 4/23/25

AYES: Smallwood-Cuevas, Cortese, Durazo, Laird

NOES: Strickland

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 11-0, 4/29/25

AYES: Umberg, Allen, Arreguín, Ashby, Caballero, Durazo, Laird, Stern, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

NO VOTE RECORDED: Niello, Valladares

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-1, 5/23/25

AYES: Caballero, Cabaldon, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

NOES: Seyarto

NO VOTE RECORDED: Dahle

SUBJECT: Employer pay data

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill, for existing pay data reporting requirements of private employers, 1) requires employers to collect and store demographic information gathered separately from employees’ personnel records; and 2) expands the pay data reporting requirements to public employers, as defined.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Prohibits an employer from paying any of its employees at wage rates less than the rates paid to employees of the opposite sex for substantially similar work, when viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility, and performed under similar working conditions, except where the employer demonstrates a wage differential based on one or more factors, as specified. (Labor Code § 1197.5)
2. Prohibits an employer from paying any of its employees at wage rates less than the rates paid to employees of another race or ethnicity for substantially similar work, when viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility, and performed under similar working conditions, except where the employer demonstrates a wage differential based on one or more factors, as specified. (Labor Code § 1197.5)
3. Establishes exceptions to these prohibitions where the employer demonstrates the wage differential is based upon one or more of the following factors:
   1. A seniority system;
   2. A merit system;
   3. A system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production;
   4. A bona fide factor other than sex, such as education, training, or experience which applies only if the employer demonstrates the factor is not based on or derived from a sex-based or race/ethnicity based differential in compensation, is job related, and is consistent with a business necessity, as defined. (Labor Code § 1197.5)
4. Makes it a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $10,000 or by imprisonment, or both, for an employer or other person acting either individually or as an officer, agent, or employee of another person to pay or cause to be paid to any employee a wage less than the rate paid to an employee of the opposite sex, race, or ethnicity or who reduces the wages of any employee in order to comply with wage protections for an employee of the opposite sex per Section 1197.5. (Labor Code § 1199.5)
5. Requires, on or before the second Wednesday of May of each year, a private employer that has 100 or more employees, as well as a private employer that has 100 or more employee hired through labor contractors, to submit a pay data report to the Civil Rights Department (CRD). The report is required to include, among other things, the following information:
   1. The number of employees by race, ethnicity, and sex in specified job categories.
   2. Within each job category, for each combination of race, ethnicity, and sex, the median and mean hourly rate.
   3. The total number of hours worked by each employee, as specified. (Government Code § 12999)
6. Authorizes CRD, if the department does not receive the required report from an employer, to seek an order requiring the employer to comply with these requirements and entitles CRD to recover the costs associated with seeking the order for compliance. A court may impose a civil penalty not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) per employee upon any employer who fails to file the required report and not to exceed two hundred dollars ($200) per employee upon any employer for a subsequent failure to file the required report. (Government Code § 12999(f))
7. Protects any individually identifiable information submitted to CRD pursuant to these provisions by prohibiting the Department from making submitted information public in any manner and by making this information confidential and not subject to disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act. (Government Code § 12999(f)(g))
8. Requires CRD to develop, publish on an annual basis, and publicize aggregate reports based on the data obtained through the employer submitted reports, provided that the aggregated reports are reasonably calculated to prevent the association of any data with any individual business or person. (Government Code § 12999(i))

This bill:

1. Revises existing pay data demographic reporting requirements of private employers to:
   1. Require employers to collect and store any demographic information gathered by an employer or labor contractor for submitting the pay data reports separately from employees’ personnel records.
   2. Require, as opposed to current law that only authorizes, a court to impose a civil penalty against an employer that fails to submit the pay data report if requested to do so by CRD.
2. Expands the pay data reporting requirements to public employers by requiring that on or before the second Wednesday of May 2027, and annually thereafter, a public employer that has 100 or more employees submit a pay data report to CRD that:
   1. Includes demographic data provided by employees, as specified, relative to ethnicity, race, disability, veteran status, and gender organized by job category as listed in the civil service pay scale.
   2. Provides that demographic data submitted to the department shall disclose only aggregated statistical data and shall not identify any individual.
   3. Any individually identifiable information submitted to the CRD shall be considered confidential information and not subject to disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act, as specified.
3. Defines, for purposes of these provisions, the following terms:
   1. “Employee” means a person employed in the state “civil service,” as that phrase is defined in Article VII of the Constitution.
   2. “Public employer” means the employer of an employee in the state “civil service,” as defined.
4. Makes the following legislative finding: in order to protect the privacy of public employees, while also gathering useful data, it is necessary that individually identifiable information submitted to the CRD remain confidential.

Background

Pay Equity. There have been numerous studies dedicated to calculating disparities in earnings between men and women in the workplace over the last fifty years. In 1963, women who worked full-time year-round made 59 cents on average for every dollar earned by a man according to the American Association of University Women (AAUW). In 2023, women working full time in the United States typically were paid just 83% of what men were paid - $55,240 compared to $66,790 – leaving women and their families at a persistent financial disadvantage.^[1] According to the AAUW, the pay gap challenges grow even more complex for women of color, LGBTQ+ women, and women with disabilities, who face compounded inequities.^[2]

The wage gap is even larger for women of color. As noted by the AAUW, America’s history of slavery, segregation, and immigration policies has created deeply rooted systemic inequalities that persist today. Among women who hold full-time, year-round employment in the United States in 2023, black women earned 66% for every dollar earned by white, non-Hispanic men, while Latinas earned 58% for every dollar. Asian women earned 94% and white, non-Hispanic women earned 80% for every dollar earned by a man.^[3]

In recognition of the pay inequities that continue to plague our country, over the past decade, the California Legislature has passed several efforts attempting to close the gender pay gaps.

Need for this bill? According to the author: “Existing pay data reports have illuminated stark gaps in achievement between Black Californians and that rest of the state. For example, in 2022, for every $1 earned by white families, Black families earn just 58 cents, and just 52 cents for Latino families. These disparities are further exacerbated in the promotion of minority workers to executive or senior level positions. According to 2022 payee data, while white Californians make up 62% of positions at the executive or senior level, Black Californians hold just 4% of these positions. While this data is currently separated into large, general industry categories, anonymized reports are not available to the public.

During a time in which the federal administration and large employers throughout the state and nation have turned away from diversity, equity, and inclusion in the workplace, it is crucial that these reports are made public to ensure our state continues to make progress towards our goals of greater upward mobility for Black Californians…

In order to ensure greater transparency and accountability, SB 464 will expand existing reporting requirements in Government Code Section 12999 to public sector employees.”

[NOTE: Please see the Senate Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee analysis on this bill for more background information and information on prior legislation.]

Related/Prior Legislation

SB 642 (Limon, 2025), among other things, would revise the definition of pay scales for purposes of pay wage transparency and would modify existing law provisions on pay equity to increase the statute of limitations for pay equity claims and strengthen violation provisions.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• CRD indicates that it would incur General Fund costs of $790,000 in 2026-27, and $781,000 annually thereafter, to implement the provisions of the bill.
• Administrative costs to the California Department of Human Resources (CalHR) have yet to be identified, but minimally would be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars annually (General Fund).

SUPPORT: (Verified 5/23/25)

California Commission on the Status of Women & Girls

California Employment Lawyers Association

California-Hawaii State Conference of the NAACP

Greater Sacramento Urban League

OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/23/25)

California Legislative Conference of Plumbing, Heating & Piping Industry

California Special Districts Association

California State Association of Counties

Construction Employers Association

Finishing Contractors Association of Southern California

League of California Cities

National Electrical Contractors Association

Northern California Allied Trades

Rural County Representatives of California

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians

Southern California Contractors Association

Southern California Glass Management Association

Tri-County Chamber Alliance

United Contractors

Urban Counties of California

Valley Industry and Commerce Association

Wall and Ceiling Alliance

Western Line Constructors Chapter

Western Painting and Coating Contractors Association

Western Wall and Ceiling Contractors Association

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:

The California Employment Lawyers Association is in support and writes: “While existing pay data provides insight into disparities, they do not fully encompass the experience of workers in the public sector, or of LGBTQ+ workers. Furthermore, without access to individual reports, stakeholders are limited in their ability to hold employers accountable to equitable pay practices. With recent threats to DEI programs in both the private and public sector, it is more important than ever to ensure that data is available to the public to ensure accountability to pay equity in the absence of robust enforcement of these crucial programs.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:

Opposition from public sector employer organizations, including the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties, write:

“According to the author, the amendments to Section 2 published on May 1 were intended to “limit the scope of the bill to state workers.” We understand these amendments were made to respond to the concerns of our coalition, however the current bill language could require a portion of counties, and a portion of their workforce, to conduct the annual pay data report. This means the bill would impose a new reporting requirement on 25 of the state’s smallest, most rural counties, most of which lack the resources of the larger counties that would be excluded from the bill’s requirements.

The May 1 amendments narrow the definition of a “public employer,” to “…the employer of an employee in the state ‘civil service,’ as that phrase is defined in Article VII of the Constitution.” While Article VII does not, in fact, define “civil service,” the term is often used to refer to not only the state workforce, but also segments of the local workforce whose positions are funded in part by the federal government for social services and child welfare programs, a system known as the Merit System Services Program (MSS). Those positions are subject to State personnel standards administered by CalHRto have their MSS program administered by CalHR. The language in SB 464 is unclear as to whether or not the bill applies to MSS employees and could be interpreted to require reporting by counties for those employees.

We believe this is an unfair treatment for rural counties and is not aligned with the intent of the author. Further, if counties are required to submit the report for MSS employees, it could muddy the data, as pay data for state employees will be mixed with data from a few segments of the county workforces among just under half of California’s counties.”

Prepared by: Alma Perez-Schwab / L., P.E. & R. / (916) 651-1556

5/26/25 13:32:47**** END ****

1. American Association of University Women, “The Not So Simple Truth About the Gender Pay Gap,” 2025 Update. https://www.aauw.org/app/uploads/2025/03/The_Simple_Truth_Gender_Pay_Gap_2025_3.28.pdf ↑

2. Ibid. ↑

3. Ibid. ↑

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

SB 464 (Smallwood-Cuevas) - Employer pay data

Bill Summary:

SB 464 would expand existing the pay data reporting requirements to public employers, as specified.

Fiscal Impact:

• CRD indicates that it would incur General Fund costs of $790,000 in 2026-27, and $781,000 annually thereafter, to implement the provisions of the bill.
• Administrative costs to the California Department of Human Resources (CalHR) have yet to be identified, but minimally would be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars annually (General Fund).

Background:

Studies consistently show that women continue to earn less than their male counterparts. In 1963, women who worked full-time year-round made 59 cents on average for every dollar earned by a man according to the American Association of University Women (AAUW). Today, women working full time in the United States typically are paid just 84 percent of what men are paid, a gap of 16 cents on every dollar. The greatest disparities appear where the categories intersect. For example, the National Women’s Law Center estimates that the average black woman earns just 63 percent of what her white male counterpart makes. Of course, these gaps compound over time, such that even relatively small pay gaps add up to earnings disparities ranging into the hundreds of thousands of dollars or more over the course of a lifetime of work. According to the American Association of University Women (AAUW), the pay gap challenges grow even more complex for women of color, LGBTQ+ women, and women with disabilities, who face compounded inequities.

Originally enacted in 1949, California’s Equal Pay Act prohibited employment of any individual at wage rates less than the rates paid to employees of the opposite sex in the same establishment for equal work on jobs. The vagueness of the law allowed employers to find loopholes to underpay women for decades. In 2015, SB 358 (Jackson, Chapter 546, Statutes of 2015) enacted the California Fair Pay Act, which strengthened the Equal Pay Act in a number of ways and signaled California’s commitment to achieving real gender pay equity. SB 358 reinforced the employer prohibition of paying any of its employees at wage rates less than those paid to employees of the opposite sex for substantially similar work and revised the employer defenses to such pay differentials.

In 2020, California enacted SB 973 (Jackson) requiring, among other things, California employers with 100 or more employees to compile data showing how much they pay their employees, broken down by rough category of work performed and cross-referenced by race, ethnicity, and gender. Covered employers are required to submit this pay data to CRD annually. CRD is required to keep each individual employer’s data confidential but must also develop and publish a yearly report based on the aggregate data.

Other legislative efforts have addressed the salaries of workers specifically. AB 1676 (Campos, 2016) specified that prior salary cannot, by itself, justify any disparity in compensation under the bona fide factor exception in the Equal Pay Act law. AB 168 (Eggman, 2017) prohibited employers, including the Legislature, the state, and local governments, from seeking salary history information about an applicant for employment and requires an employer to provide the pay scale for a position to an applicant upon reasonable request.

SB 1162 (Limon, 2022) expanded pay data reporting requirements to, among other things, cover contracted employees hired through labor contractors and required employers to make pay scale information for positions available to employees and included in job postings.

Proposed Law:

This bill, among other things, would do the following:

• Require that any demographic information gathered by an employer or labor contractor pursuant to the private employer pay data reporting law shall be collected and stored separately from employees' personnel records.
• Provide that the court shall impose a civil penalty upon an employer who fails to file the required report upon request by the CRD.
• Require that on or before the second Wednesday of May 2027, and on or before the second Wednesday of May of each year thereafter, a public employer that has 100 or more employees shall submit a pay data report to CRD covering the prior calendar year, which, for purposes of the public employer pay data reporting law, shall be referred to as the "reporting year."
• Require that the pay data report shall include demographic data provided by employees relative to ethnicity, race, disability, veteran status, and gender, organized by job category as listed in the civil service pay scale.
• Provide that demographic data submitted pursuant to this subdivision shall disclose only aggregated statistical data and shall not identify any individual.
• Specify that any individually identifiable information submitted to CRD pursuant to the public employer pay data reporting law shall be considered confidential information and not subject to disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act.
• Specify, for purposes of these provisions, "employee" to mean a person employed in state civil service, as defined.
• Specify, for purposes of these provisions, "public employer" to mean an employer of an employee in state civil service, as defined.

Related Legislation:

• SB 642 (Limon), among other things, would revise the definition of pay scales for purposes of pay wage transparency and would modify existing law provisions on pay equity to increase the statute of limitations for pay equity claims and strengthen violation provisions. The bill is currently pending in this Committee.
• SB 1162 (Limon, Chapter 559, Statutes of 2022), among other things, expanded pay data reporting requirements to cover contracted employees and required employers to make pay scale information for positions available to employees and included in job postings.
• SB 973 (Jackson, Chapter 363, Statutes of 2020) required employers with 100 or more employees to provide the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (now the Civil Rights Department) with pay data for specified job categories broken down by race, ethnicity, and sex.
• AB 2282 (Eggman, Chapter 127, Statutes of 2018) made clarifying changes to the prohibition on requesting a job applicant’s prior salary and prohibits the use of prior salary to justify any disparity in compensation. The bill also clarified that an employer is authorized to ask applicants about their salary expectations for the position.
• AB 46 (Cooper, Chapter 776, Statutes of 2017) specified that the Equal Pay Act provisions which prohibit employers from paying a lower wage rate to employees on the basis of gender, race, or ethnicity apply to both public and private employers.
• AB 168 (Eggman, Chapter 688, Statutes of 2017) prohibits employers, including the Legislature, the state, and local governments, from seeking salary history information about an applicant for employment and requires an employer to provide the pay scale for a position to an applicant upon reasonable request.
• AB 1209 (Gonzalez, 2017) would have required employers of 500 or more employees in California to collect specified information on gender wage differentials for exempt employees and board members located in California and submit it to the Secretary of State (SOS) for publishing on its Internet site. Governor Brown vetoed the bill.
• AB 1676 (Campos, Chapter 856, Statutes of 2016) specifies that prior salary cannot, by itself, justify any disparity in compensation under the bona fide factor exception in the existing Equal Pay Act law.
• SB 1063 (Hall, Chapter 866, Statutes of 2016) expanded the prohibitions in the Equal Pay Act regarding gender, to include discrimination based on race or ethnicity.
• SB 358 (Jackson, Chapter 546, Statutes of 2015) prohibited an employer from paying any of its employees at wage rates less than those paid to employees of the opposite sex for substantially similar work and revised the employer defenses to such pay differentials.

Staff Comments:

As noted above, this bill would expand the California Pay Data Reporting Program, implemented by CRD, by requiring public employers with at least 100 state civil service employees to annually submit a pay data report. CRD notes that the bill would not require the department to publish reports regarding public employer pay data. CRD would require additional resources, including costs for IT, program staff, and other administrative costs, if it were required to do so.

-- END --

SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Senator Thomas Umberg, Chair

2025-2026 Regular Session

Bill No: SB 464 (Author:Smallwood-Cuevas)

Version: April 10, 2025

Hearing Date: April 29, 2025

Fiscal: Yes

Urgency: No

Consultant: ME

SUBJECT

Employer pay data

DIGEST

This bill amends the pay data reporting law for specified private employers at Government Code section 12999 and requires public employers, as defined, to submit a pay data report to the Civil Rights Department (CRD) for the prior calendar year, as specified.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Because of occupational segregation and disparities in pay, it is well documented that white men regularly receive greater compensation than their counterparts who are not white men. Recent California initiatives have sought to reduce that pay gap by increasing transparency around employee pay and requiring equal pay for equal work. Despite California’s Equal Pay Act (Labor Code § 1197.5) and private employer pay data reporting law (Gov. Code § 12999), data continues to demonstrate persistent inequities in income for Black people, people who are not men, and people of color in California.^[1] The author notes that “[i]ncome inequality has plagued Black Californians for centuries. In 2022, for every $1 earned by white families, Black families earn just 58 cents, and just 52 cents for Latino families.” The author further highlights that these “disparities are further exacerbated in the promotion of minority workers to executive or senior level positions.” The author points to 2022 data that shows that “while white Californians make up 62% at executive or senior level, Black Californians hold just 4% of these positions.” This bill makes changes to the current private employer pay data reporting law and creates a new public employer pay data reporting law. Public employers that have 100 or more employees would be required to adhere to the new reporting requirement. The public employers would be required to submit a pay data report to the CRD annually. The pay data report must include demographic data provided by employees relative to ethnicity, race, disability, veteran status, gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation organized by job category as listed in the civil service pay scale. The bill specifies that individually identifiable information submitted to the CRD pursuant to the public employer pay data reporting law shall be considered confidential information and is not subject to disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act.

The bill is sponsored by the California Legislative Black Caucus and supported by the California-Hawaii State Conference of the NAACP, the Greater Sacramento Urban League, and the California Employment Lawyers Association. The bill is opposed by the California Chamber of Commerce, employer organizations, and organizations that represent cities, counties, and special districts. SB 464 was heard in the Senate Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement and passed the Committee on a vote of 4 to 1.

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW

Existing law:

1. Requires that on or before the second Wednesday of May 2023, and on or before the second Wednesday of May of each year thereafter, a private employer that has 100 or more employees shall submit a pay data report to the CRD covering the prior calendar year, which, for purposes of this section, shall be referred to as the “Reporting Year.” (Gov. Code § 12999 (a)(1).)
2. Requires that on or before the second Wednesday of May 2023, and on or before the second Wednesday of May of each year thereafter, a private employer that has 100 or more employees hired through labor contractors within the prior calendar year shall submit a separate pay data report to the CRD covering the employees hired through labor contractors in the prior calendar year. The private employer shall also disclose on the pay data report the ownership names of all labor contractors used to supply employees. A labor contractor shall supply all necessary pay data to the private employer. (Gov. Code § 12999 (a)(2).)
3. Specifies that the pay data report shall include the number of employees by race, ethnicity, and sex in each of the following job categories: executive or senior level officials and managers; first or mid-level officials and managers; professionals; technicians; sales workers; administrative support workers; craft workers; operatives; laborers and helpers; and service workers. (Gov. Code § 12999 (b)(1)(A)-(J).)
4. Specifies that the pay data report shall include the number of employees by race, ethnicity, and sex whose annual earnings fall within each of the pay bands used by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Occupational Employment Statistics survey. (Gov. Code § 12999 (b)(2).)
5. Specifies that the pay data report shall include the median and mean hourly rate within each job category, for each combination of race, ethnicity, and sex. (Gov. Code § 12999 (b)(3).)
6. Specifies that the pay data report shall include, for purposes of establishing the numbers required to be reported, an employer shall create a “snapshot” that counts all of the individuals in each job category by race, ethnicity, and sex, employed during a single pay period of the employer’s choice between October 1 and December 31 of the “Reporting Year.” (Gov. Code § 12999 (b)(4).)
7. Specifies that the pay data report shall include, for purposes of establishing the numbers to be reported, the employer shall calculate the total earnings, as shown on the Internal Revenue Service Form W-2, for each employee in the “snapshot,” for the entire “Reporting Year,” regardless of whether or not an employee worked for the full calendar year. The employer shall tabulate and report the number of employees whose W-2 earnings during the “Reporting Year” fell within each pay band. (Gov. Code § 12999 (b)(5).)
8. Specifies that the pay data report shall include the total number of hours worked by each employee counted in each pay band during the “Reporting Year.” (Gov. Code § 12999 (b)(6).)
9. Specifies that the pay data report shall include the employer’s North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code. (Gov. Code § 12999 (b)(7).)
10. Specifies that employers with multiple establishments must submit a report covering each establishment. (Gov. Code § 12999 (c).)
11. Requires the report to include a section for employers to provide clarifying remarks regarding any of the information provided. An employer is not required to provide clarifying remarks. (Gov. Code § 12999 (d).)
12. Requires the information submitted as required to be made available in a format that allows the CRD to search and sort the information using readily available software. (Gov. Code § 12999 (e).)
13. Requires the CRD to maintain pay data reports for at least 10 years. (Gov. Code § 12999 (j).)
14. Defines “employee” to mean an individual on an employer’s payroll, including a part-time individual, and for whom the employer is required to withhold federal social security taxes from that individual’s wages. (Gov. Code § 12999 (k)(1).)
15. Defines “labor contractor” to mean an individual or entity that supplies, either with or without a contract, a client employer with workers to perform labor within the client employer’s usual course of business. (Gov. Code § 12999 (k)(2).)
16. Defines “establishment” to mean an economic unit producing goods or services. (Gov. Code § 12999 (k)(3).)
17. Defines “individually identifiable information” as data submitted pursuant to this section that is associated with a specific person or business. (Gov. Code § 12999 (g).)
18. Requires the Employment Development Department to provide the CRD with the names and addresses of all businesses with 100 or more employees in order to ensure compliance with the pay data reporting law, as specified. (Gov. Code § 12999 (l).)
19. Provides that it is unlawful for any officer or employee of the CRD or the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) to make public in any manner whatever any individually identifiable information obtained pursuant to their authority under the pay data reporting law prior to the institution of an investigation or enforcement proceeding by the DLSE or CRD under Labor Code §1197.5 or §12940 involving that information, and only to the extent necessary for purposes of the enforcement proceeding. (Gov. Code § 12999 (g).)
20. Provides that any individually identifiable information submitted to the CRD pursuant to pay data reporting law shall be considered confidential information and not subject to disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act. (Gov. Code § 12999 (h).)
21. Provides that notwithstanding the above, the CRD may develop, publish on an annual basis, and publicize aggregate reports based on the data obtained pursuant to their authority under the pay data report law, provided that the aggregate reports are reasonably calculated to prevent the association of any data with any individual business or person. (Gov. Code § 12999 (i).)
22. Provides that if the CRD does not receive the required report from an employer, the CRD may seek an order requiring the employer to comply with the pay data reporting requirements and shall be entitled to recover the costs associated with seeking the order for compliance. (Gov. Code § 12999 (f).)
23. Provides that upon request by the CRD, a court may impose a civil penalty not to exceed $100 per employee upon any employer who fails to file the required report and not to exceed $200 per employee upon any employer for a subsequent failure to file the required report. (Gov. Code § 12999 (f).)
24. Provides that these penalties shall be payable to the Civil Rights Enforcement and Litigation Fund. (Gov. Code § 12999 (f).)
25. Allows the court to apportion an appropriate amount of penalties to any labor contractor that has failed to provide the pay data to the employer that is unable to submit a complete and accurate report because a labor contractor has not provided the pay data as required under the pay data reporting law. (Gov. Code § 12999 (f).)

This bill:

1. Requires that any demographic information gathered by an employer or labor contractor pursuant to the private employer pay data reporting law shall be collected and stored separately from employees’ personnel records.
2. Requires that for purposes of collecting the information required to be reported pursuant to the private employer pay data reporting law, information regarding an employee’s sexual orientation shall be collected only if voluntarily disclosed by the employee to the employer by the employee themselves.
3. Requires the private employer pay data report include sexual orientation in addition to the other categories already required (race, ethnicity, and sex).
4. Requires the CRD to publish private employer pay data reports provided that the publication is reasonably calculated to prevent the association of any data with any individual person.
5. Provides that the court shall impose a civil penalty upon an employer who fails to file the required report upon request by the CRD.
6. Creates a new public employer pay data reporting law.
7. Requires that on or before the second Wednesday of May 2027, and on or before the second Wednesday of May of each year thereafter, a public employer that has 100 or more employees shall submit a pay data report to the CRD covering the prior calendar year, which, for purposes of the public employer pay data reporting law, shall be referred to as the “reporting year.”
8. Requires that the pay data report shall include demographic data provided by employees relative to ethnicity, race, disability, veteran status, gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation organized by job category as listed in the civil service pay scale.
9. Provides that demographic data disclosed or released pursuant to this subdivision shall disclose only aggregated statistical data and shall not identify any individual.
10. Specifies that any individually identifiable information submitted to the CRD pursuant to the public employer pay data reporting law shall be considered confidential information and not subject to disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act.
11. Defines “public employer” for purposes of the public employer pay data reporting law as: the state and every state entity, including, but not limited to, the Legislature, the judicial branch, including judicial officers, and the California State University; and any political subdivision of the state, or agency or instrumentality of the state or subdivision of the state, including, but not limited to, a city, county, city and county, charter city, charter county, school district, community college district, joint powers authority, joint powers agency, and any public agency, authority, board, commission, or district.
12. Makes the following legislative finding: in order to protect the privacy of public employees, while also gathering useful data, it is necessary that individually identifiable information submitted to the CRD remain confidential.

COMMENTS

1. Author statement

According to the author:

SB 464 is a priority bill in the California Legislative Black Caucus’ 2025, Road to Repair Package. On June 29, 2023, the Task Force to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African Americans issued its final report to the California Legislature. In their report, the Task Force offers recommendation to remedy longstanding income inequality, specifically enhancing pay data reporting requirements.

To ensure greater transparency and accountability, SB 464 will expand existing reporting requirements in Government Code Section 12999 to public sector employees. Furthermore, this bill will include sexual orientation as a category to be included in annual payee data reports. Importantly, this data would be provided by employees voluntarily with employers required to collect and store data separately from personnel records. Finally, SB 464 will require CRD to make these anonymized reports available to the public. By ensuring the public has access to this key data, we can provide workers, their representatives, and lawmakers with greater tools to hold employers accountable to closing wealth and promotional gaps.

Existing law, requires all [private] employers with 100 or more employees to file an annual payee data report with the Civil Rights Department showing the number of employees by race, ethnicity, and sex in specified job categories. The data collected from these reports are then combined and made public on the Department’s website. SB 464 enhances these reporting requirements by expanding applicable employers, ensuring individual reports are available to the public, and making this data more accurate by including data on the LGBTQ+ community.

2. Pay data reporting

In 2020, California enacted SB 973 (Jackson, Ch. 363, Stats. 2020) in an effort to better understand and help close the pay gaps. In broad strokes, SB 973 required California employers with 100 or more employees to compile data showing how much they pay their employees, broken down by rough category of work performed and cross-referenced by race, ethnicity, and gender. (Gov. Code § 12999(b).) Under SB 973, the covered employers have to submit this pay equity data to the DFEH annually by March 31. (Gov. Code § 12999(a).) DFEH must keep each individual employer’s data confidential (Gov. Code § 12999(i)), but it has the authority to develop and publish a yearly report based on the aggregate data. (Gov. Code § 12999(k).)

Employers submitted their first SB 973 pay equity data reports in 2021 and, on March 15 of 2022, DFEH published its inaugural report on the overall results. As summarized in its press release about the report, DFEH concluded the following based on the data:

[T]he statewide findings related to sex include:

• Among workers in the lowest pay bands (earning $30,679 or less in 2020), women were overrepresented. Women made up 55% of workers in the lowest pay bands, compared to 48% of the total reported worker population.
• Among workers in the highest pay bands (earning $128,960 or more in 2020), women were underrepresented. Women made up 36% of workers in the highest pay bands.
• Among executives or senior level officials or managers, 34% were women.
• Among administrative support workers, 70% were women.

The findings related to race/ethnicity include:

• Among workers in the lowest pay bands (earning $30,679 or less in 2020), Hispanic/Latino and Black/African American workers were overrepresented. Hispanic/Latino workers made up 50% of workers in the lowest pay bands, compared to 37% of total reported workers. Black/African American workers made up 8% of workers in the lowest pay bands, compared to 6% of total reported workers. The lowest pay bands also included 25% Whites, 10% Asians, 5% two or more races, 1% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and 1% American Indian or Alaskan Native
• Among workers in the highest pay bands (earning $128,960 or more in 2020), Hispanic/Latino and Black/African American workers were underrepresented.
• Hispanic/Latino workers made up 9% of workers in the highest pay band, compared to 37% of total reported workers. Black/African American workers made up 3% of workers in the highest pay bands, compared to 6% of total reported workers. The highest pay bands also included 3% two or more races, 1% Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and 0.3% American Indian or Alaskan Native.
• White and Asian workers were overrepresented in the highest pay bands (earning $128,960 or more in 2020). White workers made up 51% of workers in the highest pay bands, compared to 34% of total reported workers. Asian workers made up 33% of workers in the highest pay bands, compared to 18% of total reported workers.^[2]

In 2022, California updated the pay equity data program through SB 1162 (Limón, Ch. 559, Stats. 2022). SB 1162 modified the pay equity data reporting program by authorizing the CRD to seek penalties in court against employers who fail to submit their data as required and required employers of 100 or more workers hired through labor contractors to provide the CRD certain specified information, including pay data, about their workers.

According to the Greater Sacramento Urban League, who writes in support of the bill:

As part of the California Legislative Black Caucus’s 2025 Reparations Priority Bill Package, SB 464 directly responds to the persistent and measurable income disparities affecting Black Californians. In 2022, Black families earned just 58 cents for every dollar earned by white families—a gap further reflected in underrepresentation in senior-level positions. This bill strengthens existing reporting requirements and ensures transparency across both the public and private sectors, giving communities and policymakers the tools needed to address discriminatory pay practices.

The California-Hawaii State Conference of the NAACP writes the following in support of the bill:

On June 29, 2023, the Task Force to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African Americans issued its final report to the California Legislature. The final report surveys the ongoing and compounding harms experienced by African Americans as a result of slavery and proposes a comprehensive reparations plan in satisfaction of the direction set forth by the Legislature in AB 3121 (2020). As part of the policy proposals, the Task Force recommended a slate of measures to address the needs of the LGBTQ+ African American community and remedy the ongoing harms of stolen labor. Specifically, the Task Force recommends enhancing annual payee data reporting requirements to ensure greater transparency and accountability in employment decisions.

Income inequality has plagued Black Californians for centuries. In 2022, for every $1 earned by white families, Black families earned just 58 cents, and just 52 cents for Latino families. These disparities are further exacerbated in the promotion of minority workers to executive or senior-level positions. According to 2022 payee data, while white Californians make up 62% of positions at the executive or senior level, Black Californians hold just 4% of these positions.

While existing pay data provides insight into disparities, they do not fully encompass the experience of workers in the public sector, or of LGBTQ+ workers. Furthermore, without access to individual reports, stakeholders are limited in their ability to hold employers accountable to equitable pay practices. With recent threats to DEI programs in both the private and public sectors, it is more important than ever to ensure that data is available to the public to ensure accountability to pay equity in the absence of robust enforcement of these crucial programs

3. Amends the private employer pay data reporting law and requires public employers to report pay data to the CRD

Despite California’s Equal Pay Act (Labor Code § 1197.5) and private employer pay data reporting law (Gov. Code § 12999), data continues to demonstrate persistent inequities in income for Black people, people who are not men, and people of color in California.^[3] The bill amends the private employer pay data reporting law in the following ways. First, the bill requires that a private employer covered by the pay data reporting law must collect and store any demographic information gathered by an employer or labor contractor, pursuant to the pay data reporting law, separately from the employees’ personnel records.

Second, the bill requires the CRD to publish private employer reports provided that the publication is reasonably calculated to prevent the association of any data with any individual person. A coalition of business organizations, including the California Chamber of Commerce writes about their concern with this bill. Their opposition focuses on the provision of the bill that would require the CRD to make the pay data reports public. The author has agreed to amend this provision out of the bill. A mock-up of the amendments are at the end of this analysis.

Third, the bill requires a court to impose the statutory civil penalty on an employer who fails to file the required report upon request of the CRD. Currently a court may impose the civil penalty upon employers. The penalty structure has built in judicial discretion. In order for the CRD to obtain civil penalties under current law, an employer must be out of compliance and then the CRD has to request the court to impose a civil penalty not to exceed $100 per employee for their failure. For a second failure the court could impose a penalty not to exceed $200 per employee. The range in this scenario under current law is $0 to $100 per employee and $0 to $200 per employee respectively. Changing the statute to require the court to impose a penalty just shift this range from $1 to $100 per employee for the first failure to file the pay report and $1 to $200 per employee for the second failure to file.

Finally, the private employers subject to the pay data reporting law will need to report demographic information regarding employees’ sexual orientation. The author has agreed to amend this provision out of the bill.

4. Requiring public employers to submit annual pay data reports

The pay data reporting law only applies to specified private employers and does not apply to public employers. SB 464 would require public employers that have 100 or more employees to submit a pay data report to the CRD annually. Public employer is defined by the bill to mean:

• The state and every state entity, including, but not limited to, the Legislature, the judicial branch, including judicial officers, and the California State University.
• Any political subdivision of the state, or agency or instrumentality of the state or subdivision of the state, including, but not limited to, a city, county, city and county, charter city, charter county, school district, community college district, joint powers authority, joint powers agency, and any public agency, authority, board, commission, or district.

The bill requires that report to include demographic data provided by employees relative to ethnicity, race, disability, veteran status, gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation organized by job category as listed in the civil service pay scale. The bill protects the employees’ demographic data through two provisions in the bill. The first provision provides that the public employer shall only disclose aggregated statistical data that does not identify any individual. Second, the bill contains a provision that specifies that any individually identifiable information submitted to the CRD pursuant to this law shall be considered confidential information and not subject to disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act. The confidentiality provision seems appropriate to ensure that sensitive information like an employee’s disability is kept private.

A coalition of organizations representing cities, counties, and special districts writes in opposition to the provisions requiring cities and counties to submit pay data reports. The State of California already collects demographic information relative to ethnicity, race, disability, veteran status, and gender of state civil service employees. The information is collected from personnel through form CalHR 1070 and through survey links.^[4] The author has agreed to amend the bill to specify that the public employer pay data reporting requirements apply to public employers who employ employees in the state civil service as defined in Article VII of the Constitution. The amendments specify that the data report shall include demographic data provided by state civil service employees pursuant to Government Code sections 8310.6, 19233, 19704, 19762, 19799, and 11019.12 relative to ethnicity, race, disability, veteran status, and gender.

The amendments agreed to by the author, reflected in the mock-up at the end of the analysis, appear to address all concerns raised by opposition. These amendments are subject to nonsubstantive technical changes suggested by the Office of Legislative Counsel.

SUPPORT

California Employment Lawyers Association

California-Hawaii State Conference of the NAACP

Greater Sacramento Urban League

OPPOSITION

Acclamation Insurance Management Services

Agricultural Council of California

Allied Managed Care

Anaheim Chamber of Commerce

Brea Chamber of Commerce

California Alliance of Family-Owned Businesses

California Apartment Association

California Association of Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors National Association

California Chamber of Commerce

California Credit Union League

California Farm Bureau

California Hotel and Lodging Association

California League of Food Producers

California Legislative Conference of the Plumbing, Heating and Piping Industry

California Retailers Association

California Special Districts Association

California State Association of Counties

California State Council of the Society of Human Resource Management

California Trucking Association

Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce

Chino Valley Chamber of Commerce

Civil Justice Association of California

Coalition of Small and Disabled Veteran Businesses

Colusa County Chamber of Commerce

Corona Chamber of Commerce

Construction Employers Association

Elk Grove Chamber of Commerce

Finishing Contractors Association of Southern California

Flasher Barricade Association

Gateway Chambers Alliance

Glendora Chamber of Commerce

Greater Coachella Valley Chamber of Commerce

Greater High Desert Chamber of Commerce

La Cañada Flintridge Chamber of Commerce

Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce

League of California Cities

Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce

Mission Viejo Chamber of Commerce

Murrieta/Wildomar Chamber of Commerce

National Electrical Contractors Association

National Federation of Independent Business

Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce

Northern California Allied Trades

Norwalk Chamber of Commerce

Oceanside Chamber of Commerce

Orange County Business Council

Paso Robles and Templeton Chamber of Commerce

Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce

Rancho Mirage Chamber of Commerce

Roseville Area Chamber of Commerce

Rural County Representatives of California

San Manual Band of Mission Indians

Santa clarity Valley Chamber of Commerce

Simi Valley Chamber of Commerce

Southern California Contractors Association

Southern California Glass Management Association

Southwest California Legislative Council

Torrance Area Chamber of Commerce

United Contractors

Urban Counties of California

Valley Industry & Commerce Association

Wall and Ceiling Alliance

West Ventura County Business Alliance

Western Electrical Contractors Association

Western Growers Association

Western Line Constructors Chapter

Western Painting & Coating Contractors Association,

Western Wall & Ceiling Contractors Association

RELATED LEGISLATION

Pending Legislation: SB 642 (Limón, 2025) amends the equal pay for equal work law. SB 642 is currently pending before this Committee and set to be heard on the same day as this bill.

Prior Legislation:

SB 1162 (Limón, Ch. 559, Stats. 2022) required employers of 100 or more workers hired through labor contractors to provide the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) certain specified information, including pay data, about their workers. This bill also requires employers to provide the pay scale for a position to an applicant for employment and include it in job postings

AB 1192 (Kalra, 2021) would have required the report and publication of a series of metrics for large California employers about the nature of their workforce, pay, benefits, and conditions including, among others, disparities in pay based on race and gender. AB 1192 died on the Assembly inactive file.

SB 973 (Jackson, Ch. 363, Stats. 2020) required California employers with 100 or more employees to compile and submit pay equity data to the DFEH annually and directed DFEH to publish a yearly report on statewide pay equity based on this data in the aggregate.

SB 171 (Jackson, 2019) was substantially similar to SB 973. SB 171 died in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

SB 1284 (Jackson, 2018) was substantially similar to SB 973. SB 1284 died in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

AB 2282 (Eggman, Ch. 127, Stats. 2018) clarified that, while prior salary information cannot justify disparities in compensation, an employer may make a compensation decision based on an applicant’s current salary as long as any wage differential resulting from that compensation decision is justified by: (a) a seniority system; (b) a merit system; (c) a system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production; or (d) a bona fide factor other than sex, such as education, training, or experience.

AB 46 (Cooper, Ch. 776, Stats. 2017) clarified that the California Equal Pay Act applies to public as well as private sector employers.

AB 168 (Eggman, Ch. 688, Stats. 2017) prohibited an employer from seeking or relying on the salary history information of an applicant as a factor in determining whether to offer an applicant employment or what salary to offer an applicant. The bill also required an employer, upon reasonable request, to provide the pay scale for a position to an applicant.

AB 1209 (Gonzalez-Fletcher, 2017) would have required employers with 500 or more employees in California to provide the Secretary of State with specific information regarding gender wage differentials for exempt employees and board members every two years as part of their corporate filings. In his message vetoing AB 1209, then Governor Brown wrote that “ambiguous” language in the bill “could be exploited to encourage more litigation than pay equity.” In addition, he wrote that “[w]hile transparency is often the first step to addressing an identified problem, it is unclear that the bill… will provide data that will meaningfully contribute to efforts to close the gender wage gap.”

SB 1063 (Hall, Ch. 866, Stats. 2016) expanded the prohibitions in the California

Equal Pay Act regarding gender to include discrimination based on race or ethnicity.

AB 1676 (Campos, Ch. 856, Stats. 2016) required that prior salary shall not, by itself, justify any disparity in compensation.

SB 358 (Jackson, Ch. 546, Stats. 2015) amended the Equal Pay Act to require employers to justify any gender pay differential with a legitimate non-sex-based factor. The bill also prohibited retaliation against employees for disclosing or discussing their wages with co-workers.

AB 160 (Grunsky, Ch. 804, Stats. 1949) enacted California’s original Equal Pay Act.

PRIOR VOTES:

Senate Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee (Ayes 4, Noes 1)

**************

Amended Mock-up for 2025-2026 SB-464 (Smallwood-Cuevas (S))

Mock-up based on Version Number 98 - Amended Senate 4/10/25

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1. Section 12999 of the Government Code is amended to read:

12999. (a) (1) On or before the second Wednesday of May 2023, and on or before the second Wednesday of May of each year thereafter, a private employer that has 100 or more employees shall submit a pay data report to the department covering the prior calendar year, which, for purposes of this section, shall be referred to as the “Reporting Year.”

(2) On or before the second Wednesday of May 2023, and on or before the second Wednesday of May of each year thereafter, a private employer that has 100 or more employees hired through labor contractors within the prior calendar year shall submit a separate pay data report to the department covering the employees hired through labor contractors in the prior calendar year. The private employer shall also disclose on the pay data report the ownership names of all labor contractors used to supply employees. A labor contractor shall supply all necessary pay data to the private employer.

(3) Any demographic information gathered by an employer or labor contractor pursuant to this section shall be collected and stored separately from employees’ personnel records.

(4) For purposes of collecting the information required to be reported pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (b), information regarding an employee’s sexual orientation shall be collected only if voluntarily disclosed by the employee to the employer by the employee themselves.

(b) The pay data report shall include the following information:

(1) The number of employees by race, ethnicity, sex, and sex sexual orientation in each of the following job categories:

(A) Executive or senior level officials and managers.

(B) First or mid-level officials and managers.

(C) Professionals.

(D) Technicians.

(E) Sales workers.

(F) Administrative support workers.

(G) Craft workers.

(H) Operatives.

(I) Laborers and helpers.

(J) Service workers.

(2) The number of employees by race, ethnicity, sex, and sexual orientation, sex, whose annual earnings fall within each of the pay bands used by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Occupational Employment Statistics survey.

(3) Within each job category, for each combination of race, ethnicity, sex, and sexual orientation sex, the median and mean hourly rate.

(4) For purposes of establishing the numbers required to be reported under paragraph (1), an employer shall create a “snapshot” that counts all of the individuals in each job category by race, ethnicity, sex, and sexual orientation, sex, employed during a single pay period of the employer’s choice between October 1 and December 31 of the “Reporting Year.”

(5) For purposes of establishing the numbers to be reported under paragraphs (2) and (3), the employer shall calculate the total earnings, as shown on the Internal Revenue Service Form W-2, for each employee in the “snapshot,” for the entire “Reporting Year,” regardless of whether or not an employee worked for the full calendar year. The employer shall tabulate and report the number of employees whose W-2 earnings during the “Reporting Year” fell within each pay band.

(6) The employer shall include in the report the total number of hours worked by each employee counted in each pay band during the “Reporting Year.”

(7) The report shall include the employer’s North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code.

(c) For employers with multiple establishments, the employer shall submit a report covering each establishment.

(d) The report shall include a section for employers to provide clarifying remarks regarding any of the information provided. An employer is not required to provide clarifying remarks.

(e) The information required by this section shall be made available in a format that allows the department to search and sort the information using readily available software.

(f) If the department does not receive the required report from an employer, the department may seek an order requiring the employer to comply with these requirements and shall be entitled to recover the costs associated with seeking the order for compliance. Upon request by the department, a court shall impose a civil penalty not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) per employee upon any employer who fails to file the required report and not to exceed two hundred dollars ($200) per employee upon any employer for a subsequent failure to file the required report. Any penalty under this subdivision shall be payable to the Civil Rights Enforcement and Litigation Fund established under Section 12907. If the employer is unable to submit a complete and accurate report because a labor contractor has not provided the pay data as required under paragraph (2) of subdivision (a), the court may apportion an appropriate amount of penalties to any labor contractor that has failed to provide the pay data to the employer.

(g) It shall be unlawful for any officer or employee of the department or the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement to make public in any manner whatever any individually identifiable information obtained pursuant to their authority under this section prior to the institution of an investigation or enforcement proceeding by the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement or the department under Section 1197.5 of the Labor Code or Section 12940 involving that information, and only to the extent necessary for purposes of the enforcement proceeding. For the purposes of this section, “individually identifiable information” means data submitted pursuant to this section that is associated with a specific person or business.

(h) Any individually identifiable information submitted to the department pursuant to this section shall be considered confidential information and not subject to disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1).

(i) (1) Notwithstanding subdivision (g), the department may develop, publish on an annual basis, and publicize aggregate reports based on the data obtained pursuant to their authority under this section, provided that the aggregate reports are reasonably calculated to prevent the association of any data with any individual business or person.

(2) Notwithstanding subdivision (g), the department shall publish private employer reports provided that the publication is reasonably calculated to prevent the association of any data with any individual person.

(j) The department shall maintain pay data reports for not less than 10 years.

(k) For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:

(1) “Employee” means an individual on an employer’s payroll, including a part-time individual, and for whom the employer is required to withhold federal social security taxes from that individual’s wages.

(2) “Labor contractor” means an individual or entity that supplies, either with or without a contract, a client employer with workers to perform labor within the client employer’s usual course of business.

(3) “Establishment” means an economic unit producing goods or services.

(l) Upon request by the department, no later than 60 days from the date of the request, the Employment Development Department shall provide the department with the names and addresses of all businesses with 100 or more employees in order to ensure compliance with this section.

(m) The amendments made to this section by Senate Bill 1162 of the 2021–22 Regular Session of the Legislature shall not affect the requirement of employers to file reports in 2021 and 2022 pursuant to this section as it read on December 31, 2022, or the department’s authority to pursue those employers on and after January 1, 2023.

SEC. 2. Section 12999.1 is added to the Government Code, to read:

12999.1. (a) On or before the second Wednesday of May 2027, and on or before the second Wednesday of May of each year thereafter, a public employer that has 100 or more employees shall submit a pay data report to the department covering the prior calendar year, which, for purposes of this section, shall be referred to as the “reporting year.”

(b) The pay data report shall include demographic data provided by employees pursuant to Government code sections 8310.6, 19233, 19704, 19762, 19799, and 11019.12 relative to ethnicity, race, disability, veteran status, and gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation organized by job category as listed in the civil service pay scale.

(1) Demographic data disclosed or released submitted to the department pursuant to this subdivision shall disclose only aggregated statistical data and shall not identify any individual.

(2) Any individually identifiable information submitted to the department pursuant to this section shall be considered confidential information and not subject to disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1).

(c) For purposes of this section, “public employer” means: the employer of an employee in the state civil service as the phrase is defined in Article VII of the Constitution.

(d) For purposes of this section, “employee” means a person employed in the “state civil service” as the phrase is defined in Article VII of the Constitution.

(1) The state and every state entity, including, but not limited to, the Legislature, the judicial branch, including judicial officers, and the California State University.

(2) Any political subdivision of the state, or agency or instrumentality of the state or subdivision of the state, including, but not limited to, a city, county, city and county, charter city, charter county, school district, community college district, joint powers authority, joint powers agency, and any public agency, authority, board, commission, or district.

SEC. 3. The Legislature finds and declares that Section 2 of this act, which adds Section 12999.1 to the Government Code, imposes a limitation on the public’s right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies within the meaning of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution. Pursuant to that constitutional provision, the Legislature makes the following findings to demonstrate the interest protected by this limitation and the need for protecting that interest:

In order to protect the privacy of public employees, while also gathering useful data, it is necessary that individually identifiable information submitted to the Civil Rights Department remain confidential.

1. Kelly Lu, “New pay data shows ongoing gender, racial pay gaps in California,” Davis Vanguard (April 5, 2025), https://davisvanguard.org/2025/04/new-pay-data-shows-ongoing-gender-racial-pay-gaps-in-california/. ↑

2. California Pay Data Reports Show Women, Latinos, and Other Groups Overrepresented Among Low-Wage Workers (Mar. 15, 2022) California Department of Fair Employment and Housing https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2022/03/DFEH-Pay-Data-Results-Press-Release-2022-03-15-1.pdf (as of Apr. 25, 2025). ↑

3. Kelly Lu, “New pay data shows ongoing gender, racial pay gaps in California,” Davis Vanguard (April 5, 2025), https://davisvanguard.org/2025/04/new-pay-data-shows-ongoing-gender-racial-pay-gaps-in-california/. ↑

4. See California Department of Human Resources CALHR, Human Resources Manual, available at https://hrmanual.calhr.ca.gov/Home/ManualItem/1/1009 [as of Apr. 4, 2025] ↑

SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR, PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT AND RETIREMENT

Senator Lola Smallwood-Cuevas, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: SB 464 Hearing Date: April 23, 2025

SUBJECT: Employer pay data

KEY ISSUES

This bill revises existing workforce demographic pay data reporting requirements of employers to 1) include sexual orientation of employees; 2) require the Civil Rights Department to publish private employer pay data reports; and 3) expand the pay data reporting requirements to public employers.

ANALYSIS

Existing law:

1. Prohibits an employer from paying any of its employees at wage rates less than the rates paid to employees of the opposite sex for substantially similar work, when viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility, and performed under similar working conditions, except where the employer demonstrates a wage differential based on one or more factors, as specified. (Labor Code §1197.5)
2. Prohibits an employer from paying any of its employees at wage rates less than the rates paid to employees of another race or ethnicity for substantially similar work, when viewed as a composite of skill, effort, and responsibility, and performed under similar working conditions, except where the employer demonstrates a wage differential based on one or more factors, as specified. (Labor Code §1197.5)
3. Establishes exceptions to these prohibitions where the employer demonstrates the wage differential is based upon one or more of the following factors:
   1. A seniority system;
   2. A merit system;
   3. A system that measures earnings by quantity or quality of production;
   4. A bona fide factor other than sex, such as education, training, or experience which applies only if the employer demonstrates the factor is not based on or derived from a sex-based or race/ethnicity based differential in compensation, is job related, and is consistent with a business necessity, as defined. (Labor Code §1197.5)
4. Makes it a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $10,000 or by imprisonment, or both, for an employer or other person acting either individually or as an officer, agent, or employee of another person to pay or cause to be paid to any employee a wage less than the rate paid to an employee of the opposite sex, race, or ethnicity or who reduces the wages of any employee in order to comply with wage protections for an employee of the opposite sex per Section 1197.5. (Labor Code §1199.5)
5. Requires, on or before the second Wednesday of May of each year, a private employer that has 100 or more employees, as well as a private employer that has 100 or more employee hired through labor contractors, to submit a pay data report to the Civil Rights Department (CRD). The report is required to include, among other things, the following information:
   1. The number of employees by race, ethnicity, and sex in specified job categories.
   2. Within each job category, for each combination of race, ethnicity, and sex, the median and mean hourly rate.
   3. The total number of hours worked by each employee, as specified.

(Government Code §12999)

1. Authorizes CRD, if the department does not receive the required report from an employer, to seek an order requiring the employer to comply with these requirements and entitles CRD to recover the costs associated with seeking the order for compliance. A court may impose a civil penalty not to exceed one hundred dollars ($100) per employee upon any employer who fails to file the required report and not to exceed two hundred dollars ($200) per employee upon any employer for a subsequent failure to file the required report. (Government Code §12999 (f))
2. Protects any individually identifiable information submitted to CRD pursuant to these provisions by prohibiting the Department from making submitted information public in any manner and by making this information confidential and not subject to disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act. (Government Code §12999 (f)(g))
3. Requires CRD to develop, publish on an annual basis, and publicize aggregate reports based on the data obtained through the employer submitted reports, provided that the aggregated reports are reasonably calculated to prevent the association of any data with any individual business or person. (Government Code §12999 (i))

This bill:

1. Revises existing workforce demographic reporting requirements of private employers to:
   1. Require employers to also include the sexual orientation of employees in the pay data report, however, it specifies that information regarding an employee’s sexual orientation shall be collected only if voluntarily disclosed by the employee to the employer by the employee themselves.
   2. Require employers to collect and store any demographic information gathered by an employer or labor contractor for submitting the pay data reports separately from employees’ personnel records.
   3. Require, as opposed to current law that only authorizes, a court to impose a civil penalty against an employer that fails to submit the pay data report if requested to do so by CRD.
2. Requires CRD to publish private employer pay data reports provided that the publication is reasonably calculated to prevent the association of any data with any individual person.
3. Expands the pay data reporting requirements to public employers by requiring that on or before the second Wednesday of May 2027, and annually thereafter, a public employer that has 100 or more employees submit a pay data report to CRD that:
   1. Includes demographic data provided by employees relative to ethnicity, race, disability, veteran status, gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation organized by job category as listed in the civil service pay scale.
   2. Provides that demographic data disclosed or released shall disclose only aggregated statistical data and shall not identify any individual.
   3. Any individually identifiable information submitted to the CRD shall be considered confidential information and not subject to disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act, as specified.
4. Defines, for purposes of these provisions, “public employer” to mean:
   1. The state and every state entity, including, but not limited to, the Legislature, the judicial branch, including judicial officers, and the California State University.
   2. Any political subdivision of the state, or agency or instrumentality of the state or subdivision of the state, including, but not limited to, a city, county, city and county, charter city, charter county, school district, community college district, joint powers authority, joint powers agency, and any public agency, authority, board, commission, or district.

COMMENTS

1. Background:

Pay Equity:

There have been numerous studies dedicated to calculating disparities in earnings between men and women in the workplace over the last fifty years. In 1963, women who worked full-time year-round made 59 cents on average for every dollar earned by a man according to the American Association of University Women (AAUW). In 2023, women working full time in the United States typically were paid just 83 percent of what men were paid - $55,240 compared to $66,790 – leaving women and their families at a persistent financial disadvantage.^[1] According to the AAUW, the pay gap challenges grow even more complex for women of color, LGBTQ+ women, and women with disabilities, who face compounded inequities.^[2]

The wage gap is even larger for women of color. As noted by the AAUW, America’s history of slavery, segregation, and immigration policies has created deeply rooted systemic inequalities that persist today. Among women who hold full-time, year-round employment in the United States in 2023, black women earned 66 percent for every dollar earned by white, non-Hispanic men, while Latinas earned 58 percent for every dollar. Asian women earned 94 percent and white, non-Hispanic women earned 80 percent for every dollar earned by a man.^[3]

Legislative Efforts to Address Pay Inequity:

In recognition of the pay inequities that continue to plague our country, over the past decade, the California Legislature has passed several efforts attempting to close the gender pay gaps.

Most recently, in 2020, California enacted SB 973 (Jackson, Chapter 363, Statutes of 2020) requiring, among other things, California employers with 100 or more employees to compile data showing how much they pay their employees, broken down by rough category of work performed and cross-referenced by race, ethnicity, and gender. Covered employers are required to submit this pay equity data to the Civil Rights Department (CRD) annually on or before the second Wednesday of May. CRD is required to keep each individual employer’s data confidential but must also develop and publish a yearly report based on the aggregate data.

According to the CRD Pay Data Reporting Handbook, employee self-identification is the preferred method of identifying race/ethnicity information. If an employee declines to voluntarily provide their race/ethnicity, employers must still report the employee’s race/ethnicity using (in the following order): current employment records, other reliable records or information, or observer perception.^[4]

SB 1162 (Limon, Chapter 559, Statutes of 2022) built upon SB 973 by expanding pay data reporting requirements to, among other things, cover contracted employees hired through labor contractors and required employers to make pay scale information for positions available to employees and included in job postings. As originally introduced, SB 1162 also included provisions requiring the CRD to publish each private employer’s pay data reports on an internet website available to the public, as specified. These provisions for the online publishing of the reports were removed in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

Pay and Demographics of California Workers: 2023 Annual Pay Data Results

According to CRD’s aggregated report of the data submitted by employers, per the requirements of SB 973, in 2023:

• 53% of California workers were male, 47% were female.
• 39% were Hispanic or Latino
• 31% were White
• 18% were Asian
• 6% were Black or African American
• 4% were Multiracial and/or Multiethnic
• <1% were Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
• <1% were American Indian or Alaska Native

Regarding the pay of reported California workers, by gender and race:

• 18% made $144,560 and over (Male 64% / Female 36%)
• 23% made $68,120 - $144,559 (Male 56% / Female 44%)
• 28% made $32,240 - $68,119 (Male 50% / Female 50%)
• 32% made $32,239 and under (Male 46% / Female 54%)

Regarding the pay of reported non-binary California workers:

• 5 – 10% made $144,560 and over
• 10 – 15% made $68,120 - $144,559
• 35 – 40% made $32,240 - $68,119
• 45 – 50% made $32,239 and under

As noted by the CRD, this data represents neither the entire employed workforce in California, which the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated to be at 18.6 million at the end of 2023, nor the self-employed or contingent workforce. Additionally, CRD notes that gender non-binary workers’ data are reported in a different way than data for women and men. Women and men are reported as a percentage of all workers in each job and pay category. Non-binary workers are reported as the percentage of all non-binary workers – not all workers – in each job and pay category.

Reparations Task Force Report:

AB 3121 (Weber, Chapter 319, Statutes of 2020) established the Reparations Task Force to

Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African Americans, with a Special Consideration for African Americans who are Descendants of Persons Enslaved in the United

States (Task Force). The purpose of the Task Force is:

1) To study and develop reparation proposals for African Americans;

2) To recommend appropriate ways to educate the California public of the task force's findings; and

3) To recommend appropriate remedies in consideration of the Task Force’s findings.

On June 29, 2023, the Task Force issued its final report to the California Legislature. Among

other things, the report highlighted harms and disparities that exist among black Californians. According to the report, black Californians earn 72 cents for every dollar earned by white Californians.^[5] According to the report, this highlights a need for greater transparency and accountability in employment. Additionally, the report finds that:

“LGBTQ+ individuals experience high rates of discrimination and harassment in hiring and in the workplace. For example, studies have shown that employers are less likely to reach out to perceived LGBTQ+ job candidates for interviews. Discrimination is heightened for LGBTQ+ applicants who are African American. Seventy-eight percent of African American LGBTQ+ individuals who responded to a survey conducted by the Center for American Progress in 2020 reported that discrimination affected their ability to be hired. For white LGBTQ+ individuals, that number was 55 percent. Even when they are hired, racism and heterosexism affects the ability of 56 percent of African American LGBTQ+ individuals to maintain their jobs.”^[6]

Furthermore, the report notes:

“The income disparity is worse for African American LGBTQ+ adults. “Across all economic indicators . . . Black LGBTQ adults have a lower economic status than Black non-LGBTQ adults.” For example, African American LGBTQ+ adults have higher unemployment rates compared to African Americans who are non-LGBTQ+. Thirty-nine percent of African American LGBTQ+ adults in the United States had a household income of less than $24,000 a year compared to 33 percent of non-LGBTQ+ African Americans. And more African American women who are LGBTQ+ live in low-income households than non-LGBTQ+ African American women.”^[7]

This bill:

This bill [SB 464] proposes to expand the pay data reporting requirements to include the sexual orientation of employees, to require the publishing of private employer pay data reports, and to require public employers to also submit demographic information on their employees to the CRD.

Staff Note: Current law requires private sector employers to collect and report on the race, ethnicity, and sex of employees in specified job categories. However, this bill would require public employers to not only disclose demographic data provided by employees relative to race, ethnicity, and gender but also disability, veteran status, gender identity, and sexual orientation, organized by job category as listed in the civil service pay scale.

2. Need for this bill?

According to the author:

“Existing pay data reports have illuminated stark gaps in achievement between Black Californians and that rest of the state. For example, in 2022, for every $1 earned by white families, Black families earn just 58 cents, and just 52 cents for Latino families. These disparities are further exacerbated in the promotion of minority workers to executive or senior level positions. According to 2022 payee data, while white Californians make up 62% of positions at the executive or senior level, Black Californians hold just 4% of these positions. While this data is currently separated into large, general industry categories, anonymized reports are not available to the public.

During a time in which the federal administration and large employers throughout the state and nation have turned away from diversity, equity, and inclusion in the workplace, it is crucial that these reports are made public to ensure our state continues to make progress towards our goals of greater upward mobility for Black Californians…

In order to ensure greater transparency and accountability, SB 464 will expand existing reporting requirements in Government Code Section 12999 to public sector employees. Furthermore, this bill will include sexual orientation as a category to be included in annual payee data reports. Importantly, this data would be provided by employees voluntarily with employers required to collect and store data separately from personnel records. Finally, SB 464 will require CRD to make these anonymized reports available to the public. By ensuring the public has access to this key data, we can provide workers, their representatives, and lawmakers with greater tools to hold employers accountable to closing wealth and promotional gaps.”

3. Proponent Arguments:

The California Employment Lawyers Association is in support and writes:

“While existing pay data provides insight into disparities, they do not fully encompass the experience of workers in the public sector, or of LGBTQ+ workers. Furthermore, without access to individual reports, stakeholders are limited in their ability to hold employers accountable to equitable pay practices. With recent threats to DEI programs in both the private and public sector, it is more important than ever to ensure that data is available to the public to ensure accountability to pay equity in the absence of robust enforcement of these crucial programs.

A March 2021 study from Just Capital and the Harris Poll found that 73% of Americans want companies to publicly disclose workforce data. JUST Capital also found that those companies that disclosed 1 EEO-1 reports outperformed their Russell 1000 peers in the stock market by 2.4% in 2021. This kind of transparency shows a real commitment to fair and equitable hiring, promotion, and retention practices, which of course is not only good for the workers, but for the company itself.

Research also shows that in countries that require companies to publicly report pay data, the wage gap has shrunk. The pay data that is revealed will incentivize employers to investigate further and fix 2gender- and race-based pay disparities to make sure they are in compliance with our equal pay laws, thereby avoiding potential liability. The pay data may also reveal trends of occupational segregation within a company, prompting employers to make changes to their hiring, pay, or promotional practices to ensure better representation of women and people of color at all wage levels within their companies.”

4. Opponent Arguments:

A coalition of employer organizations, including the California Chamber of Commerce, are opposed to the measure arguing:

Regarding the publishing of employer pay data reports:

“SB 973, the original bill mandating pay data reports be submitted to the Civil Rights Department (CRD), intentionally did not include a publication provision and such a provision in SB 1162 was rejected just two years ago. The CRD publishes data in aggregate form, rather than data associated with specific companies. Undoing this agreement will discourage growth in California and expose employers to costs associated with defending against meritless litigation…

The reports were modeled after the proposed federal EEO-1 form. Employers must categorize employees within ten job categories and identify the number of employees that fall within the twelve specified pay bands. The job categories are exceptionally broad. For example, a multitude of various job titles would fall under the broad category of ‘professionals’.

In responding to concerns about the usefulness of the reports, the EEOC explicitly stated that these reports are not useful for identifying disparities in pay between two similarly situated workers…The EEOC does not intend or expect that this data will identify specific, similarly situated comparators or that it will establish pay discrimination as a legal matter. Therefore, it is not critical that each EEO–1 pay band include only the same or similar occupations. These reports ultimately show broad swaths of data by job category, not according to whether the jobs are ‘substantially similar’ for purposes of comparison under the Equal Pay Act or the Fair Employment and Housing Act.

SB 464 seeks to publicize all of this data identifiable by individual companies under the pretense that it would reveal gender and race-based pay disparities. As explained above, this data was never designed to show such disparities. Publicizing the data to target certain employers is a manipulation of what both the EEOC and National Academies have acknowledged is not a reliable measure of pay disparities between similarly situated employees.”

Regarding the collection of employee’s sexual orientation:

“We appreciate the recognition that information regarding an employee’s sexual orientation should only be included in pay data reports if the employee voluntarily provides that information. As a result, we request that the bill include language specifying that the employer is not required to affirmatively ask about an employee’s sexual orientation.”

Additional opposition from public sector employer organizations, including the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties, write:

“Public employers are subject to laws designed to ensure that personnel decisions are based on merit, and are not based on discriminatory bases regarding gender, sexual orientation, or other criteria besides an individual’s ability to perform the job.

The complexity of this reporting requirement is made clear by the Civil Rights Department’s frequently asked questions about the data reporting, which run well over 50 pages and are nearly 20,000 words. Most counties have at least 100 employees and would be required to comply with the act.

At a time when local governments are facing significant challenges in recruiting employees to fill vacancies, we believe the resources of our local human resources officers are better used to address core duties: recruiting employees, preventing and investigating workplace violence threats, bargaining with employee representatives, and improving the wellbeing, effectiveness, and upward mobility for their workforce.”

5. Double Referral:

This bill has been double referred and if approved by this Committee today, will be sent to Senate Judiciary Committee for a hearing.

6. Prior/Related Legislation:

SB 642 (Limon, 2025), among other things, would revise the definition of pay scales for purposes of pay wage transparency and would modify existing law provisions on pay equity to increase the statute of limitations for pay equity claims and strengthen violation provisions. SB 642 is pending in this Committee.

SB 1162 (Limon, Chapter 559, Statutes of 2022), among other things, expanded pay data reporting requirements to cover contracted employees and required employers to make pay scale information for positions available to employees and included in job postings.

SB 973 (Jackson, Chapter 363, Statutes of 2020) required employers with 100 or more employees to provide the Department of Fair Employment and Housing (now the Civil Rights Department) with pay data for specified job categories broken down by race, ethnicity, and sex.

AB 2282 (Eggman, Chapter 127, Statutes of 2018) made clarifying changes to the prohibition on requesting a job applicant’s prior salary and prohibits the use of prior salary to justify any disparity in compensation. The bill also clarified that an employer is authorized to ask applicants about their salary expectations for the position.

AB 46 (Cooper, Chapter 776, Statutes of 2017) specified that the Equal Pay Act provisions which prohibit employers from paying a lower wage rate to employees on the basis of gender, race, or ethnicity apply to both public and private employers.

AB 168 (Eggman, Chapter 688, Statutes of 2017) prohibits employers, including the Legislature, the state, and local governments, from seeking salary history information about an applicant for employment and requires an employer to provide the pay scale for a position to an applicant upon reasonable request.

AB 1209 (Gonzalez, 2017, Vetoed) would have required employers of 500 or more employees in California to collect specified information on gender wage differentials for exempt employees and board members located in California and submit it to the Secretary of State (SOS) for publishing on its Internet site. AB 1209 was vetoed by Governor Brown who stated, among other things:

“While transparency is often the first step to addressing an identified problem, it is unclear that the bill as written, given its ambiguous wording, will provide data that will meaningfully contribute to efforts to close the gender wage gap. Indeed, I am worried that this ambiguity could be exploited to encourage more litigation than pay equity.”

AB 1676 (Campos, Chapter 856, Statutes of 2016) specifies that prior salary cannot, by itself, justify any disparity in compensation under the bona fide factor exception in the existing Equal Pay Act law.

SB 1063 (Hall, Chapter 866, Statutes of 2016) expanded the prohibitions in the Equal Pay Act regarding gender, to include discrimination based on race or ethnicity.

SB 358 (Jackson, Chapter 546, Statutes of 2015) prohibited an employer from paying any of its employees at wage rates less than those paid to employees of the opposite sex for substantially similar work and revised the employer defenses to such pay differentials.

SUPPORT

California Employment Lawyers Association

Greater Sacramento Urban League

OPPOSITION

Acclamation Insurance Management Services

Agricultural Council of California

Allied Managed Care

Anaheim Chamber of Commerce

Brea Chamber of Commerce

California Alliance of Family Owned Businesses

California Apartment Association

California Association of Sheet Metal & Air Conditioning Contractors National Association

California Chamber of Commerce

California Credit Union League

California Farm Bureau

California Hotel & Lodging Association

California League of Food Producers

California Legislative Conference of Plumbing, Heating & Piping Industry

California Retailers Association

California Special Districts Association

California State Association of Counties

California State Council of the Society for Human Resource Management (CALSHRM)

California Trucking Association

Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce

Chino Valley Chamber of Commerce

Civil Justice Association of California (CJAC)

Coalition of Small and Disabled Veteran Businesses

Colusa County Chamber of Commerce

Construction Employers Association

Corona Chamber of Commerce

Elk Grove Chamber of Commerce

Finishing Contractors Association of Southern California

Flasher Barricade Association

Gateway Chambers Alliance

Glendora Chamber of Commerce

Greater Coachella Valley Chamber of Commerce

Greater High Desert Chamber of Commerce

Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce

League of California Cities

Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce

Mission Viejo Chamber of Commerce

Murrieta Wildomar Chamber of Commerce

National Electrical Contractors Association (NECA)

National Federation of Independent Business

Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce

Northern California Allied Trades

Norwalk Chamber of Commerce

Oceanside Chamber of Commerce

Orange County Business Council

Paso Robles Templeton Chamber of Commerce

Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce

Rancho Mirage Chamber of Commerce

Roseville Area Chamber of Commerce

Rural County Representatives of California

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians

Santa Clarita Valley Chamber of Commerce

Simi Valley Chamber of Commerce

Southern California Contractors Association

Southern California Glass Management Association (SCGMA)

Southwest California Legislative Council

Torrance Area Chamber of Commerce

United Contractors (UCON)

Urban Counties of California

Valley Industry and Commerce Association

Wall and Ceiling Alliance

West Ventura County Business Alliance

Western Electrical Contractors Association

Western Growers Association

Western Line Constructors Chapter

Western Painting and Coating Contractors Association

Western Wall and Ceiling Contractors Association (WWCCA)

-- END --

1. American Association of University Women, “The Not So Simple Truth About the Gender Pay Gap,” 2025 Update. https://www.aauw.org/app/uploads/2025/03/The_Simple_Truth_Gender_Pay_Gap_2025_3.28.pdf ↑

2. Ibid. ↑

3. Ibid. ↑

4. California Pay Data Reporting Handbook, Reporting Year 2024. https://calcivilrights.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2025/01/PDR_California_Pay_Data_Reporting_Handbook.pdf ↑

5. California Reparations Task Force to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African Americans, Final Report. (June 29, 2023, Chapter 27) https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/full-ca-reparations.pdf ↑

6. Ibid. ↑

7. Ibid. ↑