Client Alerts & Insights
Cleveland City Council Passes New Pay Transparency and Salary History Ordinance
May 2, 2025
Authored By:
On April 28, 2025, the Cleveland City Council passed Ordinance No. 104-2025 (the “Ordinance”), which requires employers to provide an open job’s salary range on job postings and prohibits employers from inquiring about an applicant’s salary history. The purpose of the Ordinance is to “ensure that compensation is based on the qualifications, experience, and responsibilities of the position rather than the applicant’s identity or background.” The City of Cleveland joins several other states and cities—including Columbus, Cincinnati, and Toledo—that have enacted similar legislation.
Below is an overview of key points from the Ordinance that employers should consider:
- Covered Employers. The Ordinance defines an “employer” as any entity that employs 15 or more persons in the City of Cleveland, including job placement, referral, and other agencies that operate on behalf of an entity that meets the definition of an employer. The City of Cleveland is considered an employer, but all other local, state, and federal government units are excluded from the definition of employer.
- Salary Transparency. Employers are required to include the salary range or scale in all job notifications, advertisements, or other formal postings. The Ordinance broadly defines “salary” to include wages, commissions, hourly earnings, other monetary earnings, and benefits.
- Salary History. The Ordinance makes it an unlawful discriminatory practice for employers to: (1) inquire about an applicant’s current or prior salary; (2) screen an applicant based on their current or prior salary; (3) rely solely on an applicant’s current or prior salary in deciding whether to make an offer of employment or determining the applicant’s salary; or (4) refuse to hire or otherwise retaliate against an applicant for not disclosing their current or prior salary. Notwithstanding the foregoing, employers are permitted to engage in discussions with applicants about their salary expectations without inquiring about their current or prior salary. Furthermore, applicants are not prohibited from voluntarily disclosing their salary history information to employers.
- Exemptions. The Ordinance does not apply to: (1) applicants for internal transfers or promotions; (2) applicants who are re-hired by an employer if the employer already has the applicant’s salary history; (3) independent contractors; or (4) positions for which the salary is determined by collective bargaining procedures.
- Civil Penalties. Employers who violate the Ordinance may be assessed civil penalties ranging from $1,000 for a first violation to $2,500 for a second violation and $5,000 for a third violation within the past five years.
The Ordinance is currently pending the approval of Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb and will take effect six months thereafter. Employers covered by the Ordinance should work with counsel to review their job postings and ensure they include the required salary range or scale, modify their hiring practices to remove any questions about salary history, and train employees involved in the hiring process on the requirements and prohibitions of the Ordinance.
For more information, please contact a member of Benesch’s Labor & Employment Practice Group.
Eric Baisden at ebaisden@beneschlaw.com or 216.363.4676.
Adam Primm at aprimm@beneschlaw.com or 216.363.4451.
Hannah Kraus at hkraus@beneschlaw.com or 216.363.6109.
Latest News
Back To Wright Line: NLRB Resets Standards for Workplace Misconduct
Employers have regained greater flexibility to address offensive or abusive employee conduct that occurs during union activity or other activity protected by the National Labor Relations Act. On September 23, 2026, the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) issued a significant decision in Lion Elastomers LLC, 375 NLRB No. 41, restoring the prior standard for evaluating discipline when employee misconduct occurs during protected concerted activity from General Motors LLC, 369 NLRB No. 127.
Can an Algorithm Commit a Tort? The Circuit Split Over Section 230
A growing circuit split is reshaping the scope of Section 230 immunity. While the Fourth and Ninth Circuits continue to view algorithmic recommendations as protected publisher conduct, the Third Circuit has taken a narrower approach, holding that certain algorithm-driven content recommendations may constitute a platform’s own conduct and therefore fall outside Section 230’s protections.
Key Considerations for Businesses facing Defamation Issues: Strategies for Protecting Your Reputation and Brand
Defamation risk for businesses has never been higher. Even five years ago, unfavorable press could be expected to fade from …
SDNY Bankruptcy Court Offers Further Direction on Default Interest and Fee Recovery
The SDNY Bankruptcy Court’s written decision in 1300 Desert Willow builds on the framework established in Mako, providing additional guidance on when a debtor can overcome the presumption that an oversecured creditor is entitled to post-petition default interest at the contractual rate.