Background

On September 4, 2025, the Washington Supreme Court issued its decision in Branson v. Washington Fine Wine & Spirits LLC. The case centered on how the term “job applicant” should be interpreted under the state’s Equal Pay and Opportunities Act (EPOA), specifically RCW 49.58.110(4), which requires employers to disclose certain pay and benefits information in job postings.

The plaintiffs argued that the statutory protections applied broadly to anyone who applied for a job posting that did not include the required disclosures. The employer countered that only “bona fide” applicants—those with a genuine interest in the position—should qualify for remedies under the statute.

The Court’s Holding

The Court held that a “job applicant” is simply “a person who applies to a job posting.” Importantly, the Court concluded that no additional intent requirement exists. Whether an applicant had a genuine interest in the position is immaterial.

The majority emphasized that because the legislature did not include qualifying language such as “bona fide” or “good faith,” courts must apply the statute as written. Accordingly, anyone who applies to a non-compliant posting is covered under the EPOA and may seek the remedies available under the law.

A dissenting opinion expressed concern that this interpretation may encourage applications submitted solely to pursue statutory remedies, but the majority determined that any limits on scope are a matter for the legislature, not the judiciary.

Unresolved Issues

While the Court clarified the meaning of “job applicant,” it left several legal questions open, including:

• Whether individuals may bring private lawsuits under the EPOA or must proceed exclusively through administrative enforcement channels.
• Whether applicants without genuine interest in a position can establish standing, including showing “injury in fact.”
• Whether awarding statutory damages absent actual harm raises potential constitutional concerns.

These issues are likely to be the subject of further litigation.

Legislative Developments

In response to widespread litigation under the EPOA, the Washington Legislature enacted amendments effective July 27, 2025, which:

• Allow employers five business days to correct a deficient posting once notified in writing, thereby avoiding penalties during a temporary “cure period” (available until July 27, 2027).
• Clarify that employers are not liable for postings that are scraped or copied to third-party websites without authorization.
• Permit disclosure of a fixed wage rather than a range in certain situations.
• Replace the previous flat $5,000 penalty with a graduated penalty structure ranging from $100 to $5,000, depending on employer size, willfulness, and other factors.

Implications for Employers

The Branson decision underscores the importance of strict compliance with Washington’s pay transparency requirements. Key considerations include:

1. Expanded Liability Exposure
   Any person who applies to a posting lacking required disclosures may qualify as an applicant entitled to remedies under the EPOA.
2. Risk of Class Litigation
   The ruling could increase the potential for class actions, as a single non-compliant posting may support claims from multiple applicants.
3. Compliance Priorities
   Employers should audit all job postings—both internal and external—for compliance, develop procedures to respond quickly to written notices of deficiencies, and monitor third-party postings to ensure accuracy.
4. Future Legal Questions
   The scope of private enforcement, standing requirements, and constitutional considerations remain unsettled. Employers should monitor how courts address these issues in future cases.

Employer Next Steps

The Washington Supreme Court’s decision in Branson v. Washington Fine Wine & Spirits LLC adopts a broad interpretation of the term “job applicant” under the EPOA. For employers, this interpretation highlights the need for diligent compliance with pay transparency requirements, while legislative amendments provide limited relief and opportunities to correct errors. The decision also leaves several important legal questions unresolved, making continued monitoring of litigation and regulatory developments essential. Employers should work with counsel to ensure compliance, monitor future development, and develop a compliance strategy that fits their particular organization.