Virginia Worker Protections 2026: Pay Transparency and Non-Compete Compliance

Virginia employers must include a wage or salary range in every job posting and hiring advertisement starting July 1, 2026. They are also prohibited from asking applicants or former employers about salary history.

These rules, along with limits on non-compete agreements for certain healthcare workers and employees laid off without severance, require updates to postings, hiring processes, and contracts for any positions in Virginia. The changes took effect on July 1, 2026, with official guidance from the Department of Labor and Industry available for reference.

Pay Transparency in Job Postings

The main requirement is that every job posting and hiring advertisement in Virginia must include a wage or salary range for the position. This applies starting July 1, 2026, to promote transparency in compensation.

The range must be stated clearly and specifically in the text of the advertisement. Employers cannot rely on general statements that do not provide numerical information about pay.

Criteria for compliance include ensuring the range reflects the actual compensation the employer plans to offer for the role. The disclosure must cover the minimum and maximum amounts without ambiguity.

Limitations of the rule mean it applies only to positions in Virginia and does not affect job postings for locations outside the state. Employers operating in multiple states should create separate advertisements for Virginia-based roles.

In a conditional example, an employer advertising for an accountant position in Norfolk would include a range such as $65,000 to $85,000 annually in the job description.

A typical error is omitting the range entirely or using terms like "market rate" that do not specify numbers. Another common mistake is applying the same generic posting across all states without customization for Virginia requirements.

Employers should check all active and planned postings to confirm the range is present. This step helps avoid violations of the pay transparency law under the new legislation.

Additional review involves confirming that the range is consistent with internal pay structures to prevent any discrepancies that could lead to complaints.

Salary History Ban and Exceptions

Employers are prohibited from seeking wage or salary history from a job applicant during the application or interview process, including from the applicant’s former employer or a third-party service. This ban took effect July 1, 2026, to support pay equity goals.

The prohibition covers direct questions on applications as well as indirect inquiries through background checks or references. Employers must adjust their hiring workflows to exclude any salary history fields.

Criteria for the ban include avoiding any request for prior compensation details at any stage of recruitment. The rule extends to both internal and external sources of salary information.

Limitations allow a narrow exception where an applicant voluntarily discloses wage history. In such cases, the information may support a higher offer only if it does not create an unlawful pay differential.

In a conditional example, a hiring manager receives an unsolicited resume that lists previous pay and may use that detail to adjust an initial offer upward without violating the rule.

A typical error involves continuing to ask about salary history on standard application forms or during phone screens. Another mistake is assuming the ban does not apply to third-party recruiters handling Virginia positions.

Employers must update application templates and train recruiters to redirect conversations away from salary history topics. Documentation of these changes supports compliance during any review process.

Retaliation against applicants who decline to share salary history is also prohibited, requiring clear internal policies that address this protection explicitly.

Non-Compete Ban for Healthcare Workers

Employers are prohibited from requiring healthcare workers in Virginia to enter into a non-compete agreement if the workers are licensed, registered, or certified by the Board of Medicine, Nursing, Counseling, Optometry, Psychology, or Social Work. The restriction applies to these specific boards effective July 1, 2026.

The law also prevents employers from restricting providers from informing patients of employer changes or accepting patients who reach out independently. These protections apply to licensed professionals in the listed fields.

Criteria for coverage include verification that the worker holds the required license or certification from one of the named boards. The ban covers both new contracts and existing agreements that would otherwise restrict practice.

Limitations mean the rule does not extend to other licensed professions outside the specified boards. Existing non-compete rules for lower-wage workers remain in effect alongside the new healthcare-specific provisions.

In a conditional example, a medical practice in Richmond would remove non-compete clauses from contracts for nurses and counselors licensed by the relevant boards while retaining other standard terms.

A typical error is failing to identify all covered roles during contract reviews or assuming the ban applies only to physicians. Another mistake involves retaining clauses that limit patient notifications despite the explicit prohibition.

Employers should conduct a full audit of current employment agreements for healthcare staff to identify and revise prohibited provisions. Legal review ensures the updated contracts align with the July 1, 2026 requirements.

Training for HR teams on the specific boards helps prevent inadvertent inclusion of non-compete language in future agreements for covered workers.

Non-Compete Limits for Laid-Off Employees

A non-compete agreement may not be enforced against any employee who is laid off without severance benefits, effective July 1, 2026. This adds to the existing prohibition on non-competes for employees earning less than the state average weekly wage.

The restriction applies when severance is not provided at the time of layoff. Employers cannot use non-compete terms to limit future employment options in these cases.

Criteria for enforcement include confirming whether severance was offered and accepted as part of the separation package. The rule focuses on the absence of severance rather than the reason for the layoff.

Limitations mean the provision does not apply if severance benefits were provided, even in modest amounts. Multi-state employers need to ensure Virginia-specific language addresses this limitation separately from other states.

In a conditional example, a company laying off administrative staff in Virginia without severance would be unable to enforce any non-compete clause against those employees after the termination date.

A typical error is attempting to enforce non-competes in layoff situations without checking severance status or overlooking the new rule during separation agreement reviews. Another mistake involves using uniform national contracts that ignore Virginia-specific enforcement limits.

Employers should revise contract templates to include explicit statements that non-competes cannot be enforced against laid-off employees without severance. This update reduces the risk of disputes following workforce reductions.

Regular audits of separation practices help confirm that severance decisions align with the enforcement restrictions introduced on July 1, 2026.

Retaliation Protections on Immigration Status

Beginning July 1, 2026, employers face additional penalties for retaliating against employees based on immigration status. This supplements existing protections against retaliation for reporting wage theft under § 40.1-28.7:13 and § 40.1-27.3.

The new provisions expand safeguards for workers who may face adverse actions tied to their immigration status. Employers must avoid any form of retaliation connected to these factors.

Criteria for compliance include maintaining consistent treatment of employees regardless of immigration-related information disclosed during employment. Policies should explicitly prohibit adverse actions based on this status.

Limitations mean the rule adds to existing wage theft protections rather than replacing them. Enforcement mechanisms align with broader wage and hour complaint processes through the Department of Labor and Industry.

In a conditional example, an employer would face penalties for reducing hours or terminating an employee after the worker reported wage issues and their immigration status became a factor in the decision.

A typical error is assuming immigration status discussions are unrelated to retaliation rules or failing to update employee handbooks with the new protections. Another mistake involves inconsistent application of policies across different employee groups.

Employers should add clear language to handbooks and training materials that addresses immigration status retaliation. This step supports a consistent approach to all protected activities.

Documentation of policy updates and staff training records provides evidence of compliance efforts during any investigation.

Emergency Responder Leave Requirements

Beginning July 1, 2026, employers are prohibited from taking adverse action against employees who miss work to serve as voluntary emergency responders during a declared emergency. Employers must allow use of paid sick leave, vacation, or other paid leave for the absence.

The rule does not require employers to pay for missed work beyond the employee’s available leave balance. It applies only to voluntary service in declared emergencies under § 40.1-27.5.

Criteria for the obligation include verifying that the emergency has been officially declared and that the employee’s service is voluntary. Employers cannot require use of unpaid leave when paid options exist.

Limitations mean the protection covers only declared emergencies and does not extend to routine volunteer activities. Employers retain the right to request reasonable documentation of the absence.

In a conditional example, a retail employer in Virginia would permit an employee to use accrued vacation days to respond to a state-declared flood emergency without facing discipline or reduced performance ratings.

A typical error is denying leave requests outright or marking the absence as unexcused despite the new rule. Another mistake involves failing to update time-off request forms to accommodate emergency responder situations.

Employers should revise leave policies to include specific provisions for emergency responder absences. Communication of these changes to all staff prevents misunderstandings during actual events.

Coordination with local emergency management agencies can help clarify documentation requirements for such absences.

Wage Theft Enforcement Framework

The new legislation introduces uniform enforcement updates for various wage laws, including the pay transparency and salary history rules. These changes strengthen the framework for addressing violations through the Department of Labor and Industry.

Employers should expect increased scrutiny on job postings and hiring practices. Consistent application of the rules across all Virginia positions helps avoid enforcement actions.

Criteria for compliance include maintaining accurate records of all job advertisements and hiring communications. The uniform framework applies the same complaint process to multiple wage-related provisions.

Limitations mean no specific penalty amounts are outlined in the primary guidance, but violations can lead to complaints and required corrective measures. Employers must still follow existing procedures for wage theft reports.

In a conditional example, a company receiving a complaint about missing salary ranges in postings would need to correct the advertisements and respond to the Department of Labor and Industry inquiry.

A typical error is treating the new rules as separate from existing wage laws or neglecting to monitor postings after initial updates. Another mistake involves assuming enforcement will remain unchanged despite the uniform framework.

Employers should implement regular internal audits of recruitment materials to identify issues before external complaints arise. This proactive approach aligns with the strengthened enforcement structure.

Consultation with legal counsel on record-keeping practices supports readiness for any Department of Labor and Industry review.

Immediate Compliance Steps for Employers

Employers should audit all current job postings to add salary ranges where missing. Hiring teams must remove any questions about salary history from applications and interview scripts.

Review employment contracts for healthcare workers and add language noting that non-competes cannot be enforced against laid-off employees without severance. Update leave policies to address emergency responder absences.

Criteria for these steps include prioritizing postings and contracts for Virginia-based roles first. Training materials should cover all new provisions to ensure consistent understanding across teams.

Limitations mean the actions apply only to Virginia operations and do not require changes to non-Virginia practices. Employers with limited resources can phase updates by starting with high-volume recruitment areas.

In a conditional example, an HR department would create a checklist that includes verifying salary ranges in the next ten job postings and revising three healthcare contracts within the first month.

A typical error is delaying updates until after receiving a complaint or assuming existing templates already meet the new standards without verification. Another mistake involves incomplete training that leaves some recruiters unaware of the salary history ban.

Employers should assign specific team members to track completion of each compliance task. This assignment creates accountability and reduces the chance of overlooked requirements.

Final verification involves testing updated application forms and contract language with a small group before full rollout.

Considerations for Multi-State Employers

Requirements apply specifically to Virginia employers, job postings for positions in Virginia, and Virginia employees. They do not impose nationwide obligations on operations outside the state.

Multi-state employers should create Virginia-specific versions of job templates and contracts rather than applying uniform language across all locations. This avoids over-compliance in other jurisdictions.

Criteria for effective management include maintaining separate document libraries for each state with active requirements. Regular comparisons ensure Virginia materials reflect the July 1, 2026 changes while other states follow their own rules.

Limitations mean the approach requires additional administrative effort to track state variations. Employers should not extend Virginia rules to non-Virginia employees to prevent unnecessary restrictions.

In a conditional example, a national retailer would maintain one set of job postings for Virginia stores that include salary ranges and a different set for stores in states without similar transparency laws.

A typical error is using a single national template that either omits Virginia requirements or adds unnecessary disclosures elsewhere. Another mistake involves failing to update only the relevant contracts for Virginia healthcare staff.

Employers should designate a compliance lead responsible for monitoring state law changes and updating the Virginia-specific materials accordingly. This role helps maintain accuracy across locations.

Periodic reviews of all state-specific documents prevent drift between versions and support consistent hiring practices where required.

Official Resources and Next Steps

Employers can consult the full statutory text through the Virginia Legislative Information System for precise language. The Department of Labor and Industry provides the primary guidance on implementation.

Review the official DOLI summary for details on each provision. Contact the agency directly for questions on specific applications.

Criteria for next steps include scheduling an internal compliance meeting within two weeks of the July 1, 2026 effective date. This meeting should cover all updated policies and assign follow-up tasks.

Limitations mean additional guidance may be issued after the initial publication, requiring ongoing monitoring. Employers should not rely solely on secondary summaries without cross-checking the official source.

In a conditional example, a company would download the DOLI guidance document and create an internal summary tailored to its Virginia operations for distribution to managers.

A typical error is overlooking the need for legal counsel review or assuming the published guidance covers every possible scenario without further clarification. Another mistake involves ignoring updates to the Virginia Legislative Information System after the initial effective date.

Employers should establish a process for quarterly checks on official resources to stay current with any clarifications. This process supports sustained compliance beyond the immediate implementation period.

Final documentation of all changes and training sessions provides a record that demonstrates good-faith efforts to meet the new worker protection requirements.