[lotsofpulp]

>My guess is it has less to do with laziness and more to do with the financial cost of opening yourself up to lawsuits if you can't prove the wage difference isn't due to sexual discrimination.

Why would they not be equally open to that risk right now? I am not seeing any special connection between publicly listing a pay range and an applicant's gender.

[CountDrewku]

Because the jobs aren't open to CO residents.

https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb19-085

Here's the bill's summary:

>Wage discrimination based on sex - complaints - civil action - exceptions to prohibitions against wage differentials - prohibited acts of employer - employment announcements required - enforcement - rules. The act removes the authority of the director of the division of labor standards and statistics in the department of labor and employment (director) to enforce wage discrimination complaints based on an employee's sex and instead authorizes the director to create and administer a process to accept and mediate complaints of, and provide legal resources concerning, alleged violations and to promulgate rules for this purpose. An aggrieved person may bring a civil action in district court to pursue remedies specified in the act.

[lotsofpulp]

Ah, yes, I can see why that would be an issue. I was under the assumption liability possibilities would only start after someone was hired.

[notahacker]

Wouldn't it leave them open to "I have above the minimum qualifications and experience and yet your offer is near the bottom of the range, not near the top" discrimination suits (in addition to the status quo risk of lawsuits if the company actually does pay similarly qualified men more)

[lotsofpulp]

I do not know if that would be an issue, but I do see CountDrewku's point that the job listing itself might cause problems the way the law was enacted:

https://www.colorado.edu/hr/colorados-equal-pay-equal-work-a...