Arizona salary history ban: no state law, the Ninth Circuit's prior pay rule and what applies

Arizona has no statewide law that bars employers from asking job candidates about their salary history, as of October 2026, and we found no Arizona city ordinance that does. Two 2025 bills that would have changed that, Senate Bill 1197 and House Bill 2912, were referred to committees and never acted on. The rule that matters most in Arizona is federal: the Ninth Circuit held in Rizo v. Yovino (2020) that prior pay, "alone or in combination with other factors," cannot justify paying a woman less than a man for equal work. Asking is legal; setting pay from the answer is the risk.

This page covers the state's position, the 2025 bills, the Ninth Circuit rule, Arizona's own equal pay statute, and the neighboring states that do ban the question, which Arizona desks recruit into every week.

Is there an Arizona salary history ban?

No. Title 23 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, the labor title, contains no rule on pay history questions, and both 2025 bills on the subject would have created one as a new section 23-207, which shows the gap. Our guide to hiring employees in Arizona and Arizona background check guide reach the same conclusion.

The 2025 session saw two bills, neither enacted:

• Senate Bill 1197, "wage history; disclosure; retaliation; prohibition," would have barred employers from refusing to interview, hire, promote or employ an applicant, or retaliating against one, "because the applicant does not provide wage history." It would not have banned the question itself, much like Alabama's narrow law. It was assigned to the Senate Regulatory Affairs and Government Efficiency Committee and the Rules Committee on January 27, 2025, with no action recorded.
• House Bill 2912, "employment; employee salary," was broader. It would have barred employers from inquiring about a prospective employee's salary history before negotiating and making an offer with compensation, unless the candidate volunteered it, and from screening applicants on previous wages. It was assigned to the House Commerce and Rules Committees on February 12, 2025, with no action recorded.

We found no salary history bill in the 2026 session. Similar bills have been filed in earlier years without success, so treat any new one as a proposal until it has a chapter number.

Do any Arizona cities ban salary history questions?

We found none. The legislative records that Phoenix, Mesa, Maricopa County and Pima County publish show no salary history ordinance, and we found no ordinance in Tucson or Flagstaff either. A city could still change its own hiring forms by policy; that would bind the city as an employer, not private businesses.

What does the Ninth Circuit's Rizo decision mean for Arizona employers?

The federal Equal Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. § 206(d)(1), lets an employer pay men and women differently for equal work only under a seniority system, a merit system, a production-based system, or "a differential based on any other factor other than sex." Federal appeals courts have split on whether prior pay is such a factor. Arizona sits in the Ninth Circuit, which has the strictest answer.

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." Only job-related factors qualify. The court overruled its own 1982 decision that had allowed prior pay when used reasonably with other factors. The Supreme Court denied review on July 2, 2020.

The decision does not ban the question. What it changes is the defense. In practice:

• Matching old pay is not a reason. If a woman is paid less than a man in the same job because her offer matched a lower prior salary, an Arizona employer cannot point to that salary to justify the gap in federal court.
• Job-related reasons are. Experience, education, skills and the duties of the role can justify a difference if they were actually used and written down.
• Salary records are evidence. A current-pay field in the submittal or an email saying "she's at 62, offer 66" is the record a plaintiff would use to show what drove the number.

The court was explicit that 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 employer may still look at prior pay; it just cannot hide behind it if a gap follows. For most desks the simplest compliance step is not to collect it.

What does Arizona's own equal pay law say?

A.R.S. 23-341 bars paying an employee "at wage rates less than the rates paid to employees of the opposite sex in the same establishment for the same quantity and quality of the same classification of work." It allows variations based on seniority, length of service, ability, skill, duties, shift, hours, lifting restrictions, "or other reasonable differentiation, factor or factors other than sex, when exercised in good faith." Three procedural points:

• An affected employee may register a complaint with the commission (the Industrial Commission of Arizona) or sue for the unpaid balance.
• An action must be brought within six months of the alleged violation, and the employer is not liable for pay due more than thirty days before it received written notice of the claim.
• The person bringing the claim must show the pay difference is based on sex and not on other factors.

The state law says nothing about salary history. Its "good faith" factor test is looser than the Ninth Circuit's federal rule, so the federal rule is the one to plan around.

Which neighboring states' bans reach Arizona recruiters?

Phoenix and Tucson desks fill jobs across the Southwest, and three neighbors ban the question:

The trigger is where the job or the remote worker is, not where your office is. A Scottsdale agency screening for a Las Vegas client, or a Tucson employer hiring a remote analyst who lives in Denver, should apply that state's rule. Utah and New Mexico are not on our list of salary history ban states.

What can a recruiter ask instead?

Ask what the candidate wants and why. Expectations, the floor they need to move, and pay they would forfeit by leaving (an unvested bonus or equity) are fair questions everywhere and are what an offer actually has to beat. See salary expectation questions for wording.

Opening the pay topic

"This role pays $24 to $28 an hour with medical and a 401(k) match (example figures). What rate are you looking for?"

When the client asks for current pay

"We don't collect it. In the Ninth Circuit an old salary won't defend a pay gap anyway, so it's better not to have it in the file. His expectation is $27, inside your range."

When the candidate volunteers it

"Thanks. We set offers from the role and your experience rather than current pay. What number would make this worth it?" Then record the expectation only, as covered in what not to write in interview notes.

An Arizona checklist

1. Decide whether your desk asks about pay history at all. Given Rizo, most Arizona teams gain little from the answer.
2. Remove current-pay fields from submittal templates and ATS screens used for Arizona roles.
3. Route California, Nevada and Colorado jobs, and remote workers in those states, through that state's process.
4. Set offers from the range, the role and the candidate's job-related qualifications, and write the reasons down.
5. Answer pay complaints quickly: A.R.S. 23-341 claims run on a six-month clock.

Arizona salary history rules at a glance