Taking Care of HR Business
        A blog from the attorneys of Verrill

        Dear Byron: Let’s Talk About Prior Salary

        by Tawny L. Alvarez on April 19, 2018
        Image of Byron Verrill

        Letter to Byron D. Verrill, who in 1862 began the law practice known today as Verrill Dana, LLP

        Dear Byron D. Verrill:

        When I’m interviewing applicants for a new position is it okay for me to ask about prior or current salary at other employers?

        Thanks,
        Hugh Gotthis

        Dear Hugh,

        Thanks for the note. When I started the firm in the 1860s this was definitely okay, but I didn’t do it. Instead, I paid employees in whatever I got paid in—which was sometimes lobsters, and other days laundry for a week. I think I’ll pass this one off to a colleague—Tawny, your thoughts?

        Thanks Byron. Hugh, great question. The short answer is maybe, but it’s definitely not best practices. In some jurisdictions, including Massachusetts and Puerto Rico, state law prohibits (or within the next few months will prohibit) questions of this nature prior to an offer of employment (with financial terms) being made. So, in those jurisdictions it’s an easy no. But, even for employers who may not operate in one of these locations, the practice itself is high-risk under the Federal Equal Pay Act. Recently, the Ninth Circuit was asked to determine whether under the Equal Pay Act an employer can “justify a wage differential between male and female employees by relying on prior salary?” They noted that the answer was clear—No. (Rizo v. Yovino, No. 16-15372 (9th Cir. Apr. 9, 2018)).

        In part, if you are going to ask for the information don’t you want to be able to use it? For example, let’s say you hire for two new positions with the plan to pay at $17.00 per hour (but you can afford to pay up to $21.00 per hour). You ask the individual what she made in her prior position and she says $16.00 per hour. You say, perfect, we’ll pay you $17.00 per hour. She accepts. Next applicant walks in the door applying for the same position; similarly qualified, similarly intelligent, similar everything. You ask him how much he is making at his current position and he says $19.00 per hour. You say, the position pays $17.00 an hour. He says, sorry, I can’t take that type of pay cut, I have to make $20.00 per hour or it doesn’t make sense for me to leave my position. You’re tired of interviewing, you want to get back to work, this is still within budget so you decide fine, $20.00 it is.

        You’re paying applicant two more because he negotiated it up—told you what he was currently making and you paid him that amount to secure him—but you simultaneously appear to have created an inequality between two similarly situated positions. If asked in a lawsuit the reason for the difference, you’ll likely respond, well they both ended up making one dollar more than they were making previously, so they’re still similar. The similarity, however, is simply furthering the wage gap. That, position isn’t going to cut it under the Equal Pay Act and generally is higher-risk behavior.

        I hope this helps Hugh, and best of luck in your next round of applicant interviews.

        Best,

        Tawny (& Byron)

        Taking Care of HR Business

        Human resource professionals, supervisors, and company executives are constantly confronted with a changing legal landscape. Verrill’s Taking Care of HR Business blog is designed to keep you informed about the latest and most significant legal developments that affect employers.

        Key Contacts

        Subscribe

        Looking for more great content? Subscribe for regular legal updates and information delivered right to your inbox.

        Firm Highlights

        Blog

        What is a Bonus for Purposes of ERISA?

        An ongoing dispute about a Department of Labor advisory opinion published last September raises a basic but unanswered question under the ERISA: What...
        Media Mentions

        Verrill Recognized by WMTW for Partnership Supporting Hunger Relief in Maine

        Verrill was recently featured in coverage by WMTW News 8 for its role in a collaborative effort to combat food insecurity across southern...
        Press Releases

        33 Verrill Attorneys, Across Four Offices, Recognized in the 2026 Chambers USA Guide

        BOSTON, Massachusetts, PORTLAND, Maine, WESTPORT, Connecticut, and WASHINGTON, D.C. – Verrill has been recognized as a Leading Firm in 14...
        Blog

        Will the Knicks Beat the Spurs? (Are Prediction Market Event Contracts Gambling?)

        For those of you who like to keep score, currently 18 states are engaged in litigation over prediction markets, such as Kalshi and Polymarket,...
        Alerts and Newsletters

        DOJ Announces Faster Review and Enhanced Enforcement for Benefits-Fraud FCA Matters

        On May 27, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Division issued a new memorandum, “Accelerating Review and Enhancing Enforcement in...
        Alerts and Newsletters

        DOJ Announces Minnesota Health Care Fraud Takedown; Signals Intensified Medicaid Enforcement Nationwide

        On May 21, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced a first-of-its kind Minnesota Health Care Fraud Takedown charging 15 defendants, including...
        Media Mentions

        Lauren Galvin Quoted in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly on Arbitration and Anti-SLAPP Protections

        Verrill Partner Lauren Galvin was recently featured in a Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly article highlighting a notable Superior Court decision...
        Blog

        Section 530A Accounts: What Employers Should Consider Before Offering Contributions to “Trump” Accounts

        Section 530A accounts, commonly referred to as Trump accounts, have attracted attention since the enactment of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in...
        Blog

        Navigating PBM Reform: Regulatory Changes, Market Shifts, and Practical Guidance for ERISA Fiduciaries

        Pharmacy Benefit Manager (“PBM”) arrangements have long relied on rebates with limited transparency into true drug costs. Recent regulatory and...
        Blog

        DOL’s Proposed Regulation on Selecting Alternative Investments: Broad Implications for 401(k) and 403(b) Plan Fiduciaries

        On March 30, 2026, the Department of Labor issued a proposed regulation purporting to implement an executive order to expand access to “alternative...
        Press Releases

        Verrill Welcomes Private Clients & Fiduciary Services Attorney Gracie Castle

        BOSTON, Massachusetts – Verrill is pleased to welcome Gracie Castle to the firm’s Private Clients & Fiduciary Services Group as an Associate,...
        Published Works

        Francesco De Vito Authors Article in the Journal of the American College of Mortgage Attorneys

        Verrill Partner Frank De Vito authored an article featured in the Spring 2026 issue of The Abstract, the journal of the American College of Mortgage...