Alaska salary history ban: no state law yet, what HB 156 would change, and the Ninth Circuit rule on prior pay

Alaska has no law that bars employers from asking job candidates about their salary history, as of November 2026, and we found no salary history rule in the Anchorage, Fairbanks or Juneau codes. House Bill 156 would add one: it would stop employers from asking applicants what another employer paid them and would put pay ranges in job ads. But the bill has been in the House Finance Committee since May 14, 2025. Until it passes, the limits in Alaska come from equal pay law: AS 18.80.220, which reaches employers with a single employee, and the Ninth Circuit's rule that prior pay cannot justify a pay gap.

Is it illegal to ask about salary history in Alaska?

No. Neither the labor title of the Alaska Statutes nor the Human Rights Law in AS 18.80 says anything about pay history questions, and when we searched the Legislature's 2025–2026 documents for the phrase "salary history" in November 2026, the only hits were committee minutes on HB 156. Private and public employers may ask. A candidate may decline, but no Alaska statute protects a candidate who does. The rest of the state's hiring rules are in hiring employees in Alaska, and the screening side is in Alaska background check laws.

What would HB 156 change?

House Bill 156, sponsored by Representative Mina, carries the short title "Disclosure of wage information." The House Labor and Commerce Committee's version, CSHB 156(L&C), offered on May 13, 2025, would add a new article to AS 23.10. Under its proposed AS 23.10.700(b), an employer could not:

• "ask an applicant for employment about compensation the applicant may have received from another employer";
• stop an employee or applicant from disclosing their own pay or from "discussing or asking about the compensation of another"; or
• stop an employee or applicant from helping someone else use those rights.

Proposed subsection (a) would require any "notice, advertisement, or other solicitation for employment" to include "a description of the compensation, including the salary or range of salaries, for the position." Subsection (c) keeps voluntary disclosure lawful and says nothing in the section stops an employer "from considering or relying on" pay a candidate volunteers. The bill's employer definition takes in the state, the University of Alaska, the Alaska Railroad Corporation, political subdivisions "and a person who employs one or more employees," so almost every Alaska employer would be covered. Retaliation claims would carry a three-year filing limit.

Two details matter for recruiters. First, the committee text addresses questions put to the applicant; it does not mention asking a former employer, which Washington's law expressly covers. Second, the volunteered-pay rule is looser than in states such as Minnesota, which allow volunteered pay only to support a higher offer.

Where it stands: the bill was read the first time and referred to the Judiciary and Labor and Commerce committees on March 26, 2025. Judiciary reported it on May 2, 2025. Labor and Commerce reported the committee substitute on May 13, 2025, with four "do pass" and two "do not pass" recommendations, and a Finance referral was added on May 14, 2025. The bill record shows no later action as of November 2026. Treat it as a proposal, not a rule.

What does Alaska's equal pay law require today?

AS 18.80.220(a)(5) makes it unlawful for:

"an employer to discriminate in the payment of wages as between the sexes, or to employ a female in an occupation in this state at a salary or wage rate less than that paid to a male employee for work of comparable character or work in the same operation, business, or type of work in the same locality"

The older equal pay sections in AS 23.10 were repealed, and the statute book now points readers to AS 18.80.220. How it compares with the federal Equal Pay Act:

The practical reading for an agency: an Alaska offer that leaves a woman paid less than a man for comparable work needs a reason that is about the job, and "her last employer paid less" is not that reason.

How do federal courts in Alaska treat prior pay?

Strictly. Alaska is in the Ninth Circuit. In Rizo v. Yovino, No. 16-15372, filed February 27, 2020, the en banc court held "that an employee's prior pay cannot serve as an affirmative defense to a prima facie showing of an EPA violation," and that "prior pay, alone or in combination with other factors, cannot serve as a defense." The employer has to show the gap was "in fact justified by job-related factors other than sex."

The court also said its rule addresses the defense, "not the consideration of prior pay to make a competitive job offer, to negotiate higher pay, or to set a salary." So an Alaska employer may look at old pay; it simply cannot rely on it in court. The EEOC takes the same line: its Compliance Manual section on compensation discrimination, still on eeoc.gov as of November 2026, says "Prior salary cannot, by itself, justify a compensation disparity." Title VII, at 42 U.S.C. 2000e-2(a), adds a federal claim against employers with 15 or more employees.

Do Anchorage, Fairbanks or Juneau have salary history rules?

We found none. In November 2026 we searched the Anchorage Municipal Code and the Fairbanks and Juneau codes on Municode for "salary history," "wage history," "pay history," "prior salary" and "compensation history" and found no provision. A municipality can still drop the question from its own applications by policy; that binds it as an employer, not private businesses. If your client is a borough or city, ask for its current application.

Which other states' bans reach Alaska recruiters?

Alaska desks recruit across the West Coast, and many Alaska employers are headquartered in Seattle or Portland. Three nearby states ban the question:

Look at where the job, or the remote worker, will be. A Seattle company hiring an Anchorage-based field manager is filling an Alaska job; an Anchorage firm hiring a remote analyst who lives in Tacoma should check Washington's rule. Postings for remote roles raise the matching pay range question; see pay transparency for remote jobs.

Should an Alaska recruiter ask about current pay?

Agencies with seasonal and rotational desks see the same candidates year after year. If your database still holds a pay figure from a past search, keep it out of the next offer conversation; it is exactly the kind of record a pay claim would use. Licensing and other agency rules are in Alaska staffing agency licensing and E-Verify requirements in Alaska.

An Alaska script

Opening the pay topic

"This role pays $38 to $44 an hour on a two-weeks-on, two-weeks-off rotation, plus travel (example figures). What rate would make the move worth it?" More wording is in salary expectation questions.

When the client asks what the candidate earns now

"We don't collect current pay. In the Ninth Circuit an old salary won't defend a pay gap, so it is safer not to have it in the file. His expectation is $42, inside your range."

When the candidate volunteers current pay

"Thanks. We set offers from the role and your experience, so the useful number is what you're looking for." Record the expectation only; see what not to write in interview notes.

Alaska summary

Alaska checklist

1. Adopt a no-pay-history policy now; if HB 156 passes in a later session you will already comply.
2. Put the range in your own postings and ask for expectations.
3. Write down the job-related reasons for each offer; do not let prior pay explain a gap.
4. Remove current-pay fields from submittal templates and old candidate records used for offers.
5. Check the state where a remote hire will work, starting with Washington, Oregon and California, and compare with the other states on our salary history ban states list.