Oregon’s HB 2746 reflects a broader legislative trend: the convergence of pay equity, fair chance … More hiring, and anti-discrimination measures into integrated compliance frameworks.
getty
You’ve posted a job, screened a few resumes, and started your first interview with a promising candidate. Before discussing compensation, you ask a seemingly simple question: “What did you make in your last role?” Under Oregon law, that question is already off-limits. A new bill under consideration would extend these rules further—and change how employers navigate not just compensation conversations, but also criminal background checks and job postings.
House Bill 2746, introduced during Oregon’s 2025 legislative session, proposes a sweeping update to state employment regulations by combining three interrelated policies—pay transparency, salary history restrictions, and fair chance hiring practices—into a single compliance framework. This approach reflects a broader national trend to address systemic barriers to employment through unified legislation rather than isolated reforms.
Advertisement
Compensation Disclosure and Pay Transparency
At the heart of HB 2746 is a proposal to mandate proactive compensation disclosures. If passed, the bill would require employers and employment agencies to include wage or wage range information, a general description of benefits, and any other compensation in all job postings. This requirement would apply not only to external advertisements, but also to internal opportunities related to promotions and transfers.
In addition to postings, the bill would require employers to provide the same compensation information:
To job applicants upon request and before any compensation discussion or offer;
To employees at the time of hire, transfer, or promotion;
And once per calendar year, if requested.
These requirements would apply to any position that could be performed in whole or in part within Oregon—including remote or hybrid roles.
This marks a significant shift. While some states—such as California, ColoradoNew York, and New York—have already adopted similar requirements, Oregon currently has no statewide pay transparency mandate. HB 2746 would place Oregon among a growing number of jurisdictions emphasizing compensation clarity to help reduce wage disparities and foster transparency in hiring.
Salary History Inquiries: Expanded Restrictions and Clarified Boundaries
Oregon law already prohibits employers from requesting salary history before making a job offer that includes a pay amount. HB 2746 does not change the core restriction but expands its reach to include employment agencies, which are currently outside the scope of the statute.
The bill preserves a key nuance that’s important for employers to understand: while it prohibits asking about past pay, it does not prevent employers from asking about salary expectations. Employers may still ask questions such as:
Advertisement
“What are your compensation expectations for this role?”
However, questions that solicit information about previous wages remain impermissible unless the candidate voluntarily discloses that information after an offer is made, and the employer receives written authorization to verify it.
This clarification can help employers strike a balance between compensation strategy and compliance as they assess candidate fit within established salary bands.
Criminal History Inquiries: Reinforcing Fair Chance Hiring
HB 2746 also revisits Oregon’s existing “ban-the-box” law, which prohibits employers from inquiring into an applicant’s criminal history prior to an initial interview—or before a conditional offer, if no interview occurs. The bill retains that timing restriction and explicitly extends it to employment agencies, ensuring that recruiters and staffing partners adhere to the same standards as direct employers.
The bill outlines specific exceptions for roles where background checks are required by federal, state, or local law, or where the employer operates in law enforcement or the criminal justice system.
Notably, the bill does not incorporate elements of Portland’s Fair Chance Ordinance, such as the requirement to conduct individualized assessments or provide written notice if an offer is rescinded due to a candidate’s criminal record. However, HB 2746 does create a statewide baseline that would standardize compliance expectations for employment agencies across Oregon.
HB 2746 expands on Oregon’s existing “ban-the-box” law.
Advertisement
Alonzo Martinez
Implications for Employers
If passed, HB 2746 would affect multiple facets of hiring and talent management, particularly for organizations with multistate operations, remote roles, or third-party recruiting partnerships.
Employers and employment agencies would need to:
Review and update job postings to ensure wage ranges and benefits are clearly disclosed;
Confirm interview guides exclude questions related to salary history, while safely allowing discussions about expectations;
Adjust the timing of criminal background checks to align with interview or offer stages;
Train recruiters, hiring managers, and HR professionals on the new requirements.
Employers would also be required to:
Retain compensation-related records—including wage ranges and wage history—for the duration of employment and two years after separation.
Importantly, HB 2746 does not contain a preemption clause, meaning local ordinances like Portland’s Fair Chance Ordinance would continue to apply. Employers operating in or hiring for roles based in Portland must still comply with more restrictive local requirements, such as conducting individualized assessments and providing written notice when adverse action is taken based on criminal history.
Preparing for a Potential Shift
HB 2746 reflects a broader legislative trend: the convergence of pay equity, fair chance hiring, and anti-discrimination measures into integrated compliance frameworks. While the bill remains under consideration, it signals where employment regulation is heading—not just in Oregon, but nationwide.
Employers who proactively evaluate their hiring processes, compensation disclosures, and background screening practices will be better prepared to adapt should the bill become law. Those who wait may find themselves navigating compliance after the fact.
As regulations continue to evolve, employers may need to ask not just whether their hiring practices are competitive—but whether they’re compliant, equitable, and ready for what’s next.
SALEM, Ore. (KATU) — Oregon’s childhood vaccination rates have fallen to their lowest levels on record, while the number of parents claiming nonmedical vaccine exemptions continues to climb, according to newly released data from the Oregon Health Authority.
The agency reported on Thursday that 85.6% of Oregon kindergarteners were up to date on required vaccines during the 2025-26 school year.
At the same time, the nonmedical exemption rate reached a record high of 10.9%.
State health officials say the trend is raising concerns about the potential for outbreaks of highly contagious diseases, including measles and whooping cough.
Advertisement
“Although the vast majority of families in Oregon are still choosing to protect families through vaccination, the downward trends are deeply concerning,” said Dr. Howard Chiou, medical director for communicable diseases and immunizations at OHA. “We risk seeing the return of diseases such as measles and polio—diseases of the past that once caused widespread harm but are entirely preventable with vaccines.”
READ ALSO | Oregon State study raises concerns about AI’s impact on student thinking skills
The statewide numbers tell only part of the story.
According to OHA, more than one in three Oregon schools with at least 10 students have measles vaccination rates below 95%, the threshold public health officials say is needed to help prevent outbreaks through community immunity.
Chiou said those exemption rates, combined with lower vaccination coverage at some schools, are increasing the risk of disease outbreaks.
Advertisement
The concerns come as Oregon and the nation are seeing increases in vaccine-preventable diseases.
OHA says the nonmedical exemption rate for the second dose of the measles vaccine has nearly doubled over the past decade, rising from 4.9% to 9.4%.
The state also recorded 1,475 cases of pertussis, or whooping cough, in 2025, the highest total in 75 years.
What could happen if the trend continues?
Dr. Alanna Braun, a pediatrician at OHSU, said declining vaccination rates increase the likelihood of disease outbreaks.
“The thing that really stands out to me the most is just sort of the trend of just ongoing decreased immunization rates across our state and seeing how many schools here in Oregon are now at risk for major outbreaks of some really serious illnesses,” said Braun.
Advertisement
Braun said communities become more vulnerable when vaccination rates fall below the level needed to prevent the spread of disease.
READ ALSO | Council passes Portland Arts Tax update, increasing fee & changing exemption threshold
She noted that outbreaks can affect more than just unvaccinated students.
“A lot of kids have infant siblings at home who are not able to be vaccinated,” Braun said. “Certainly, there are kids in all of these schools who are unable to be vaccinated, kids who are undergoing chemotherapy for cancer. There are teachers who are immunocompromised for various reasons.”
Braun said the long-term outlook is concerning if vaccination rates continue to fall.
Advertisement
“As we’re seeing reduced rates of immunizations, I think it’s more and more likely that we are gonna see some of these preventable illnesses with more frequency,” she said.
What parents can do
OHA is encouraging parents to check vaccination rates at their child’s school and talk with their healthcare provider if they have questions about vaccines.
“We want to empower families to make informed decisions,” said Chiou. “We want parents to revisit and reconsider their decisions because the situation in Oregon has changed.”
Parents can view vaccination and exemption rates for individual schools using OHA’s School Immunization Data Dashboard.
PORTLAND Ore. (KPTV) – Starting in 2026, a new law in Oregon requires all non-motorized boats, regardless of size, to buy and carry a waterway access permit. That includes paddleboards and kayaks.
But there has been some push back from one organization.
Ben Roche is part of Let Us Paddle. The organization aims to repeal the updates to the waterway access permit.
“It’s Oregonians constitutional right to free access to our waterways. And human powered watercrafts are the best way to do that, and the least environmentally impactful,” said Roche.
Advertisement
According to the Oregon State Marine Board, permit fees range from $6 to $35.
If you’re caught without a permit, there’s a $115 fine.
The state agency says the funding goes directly to two programs.
One supports aquatic invasive species watercraft inspection stations and the other improves access points to the water that specifically serve paddlers.
“There is a need for inspection and we support that. What we don’t support is charging recreational paddleboarders for cleaning of motorboats that enter our state,” said Roche.
Advertisement
Roche adds, the state is only funding a few dozen access points.
Let Us Paddle has collected at least 20,000 signatures, and they want about 130,000 more by July 2.
They need at least 120,000 verified signatures to put the repeal before voters on the November ballot.
But even if they don’t meet the requirement, Roche says he’ll keep pushing for change.
“I think it’s really a poorly crafted bill that collects a small drop in the bucket of revenue but impacts thousands of recreational kayakers across the state,” said Roche.
Advertisement
FOX 12 reached out to the Oregon State Marine Board to ask more questions, but have not yet to heard back.
Oregon DMV temporarily paused dispersing new undercover vehicle license plates starting April 15.
FILE – The U.S. Department of Justice seal is seen on a podium before a news conference, May 4, 2026, in Washington.
Julia Demaree Nikhinson / AP
Advertisement
The Justice Department is suing four states after they refused to issue confidential license plates to federal law enforcement agencies, despite having done so in the past.
The lawsuits, filed Wednesday in Oregon, Washington, Massachusetts and Maine, seek to force states to resume what the federal government describes as long-standing, routine policies.
The scope of the combined litigation raises questions about ways the federal government has aggressively carried out immigration enforcement since President Donald Trump’s reelection, and whether the Constitution grants states the power to deny federal law enforcement agencies license plates that effectively conceal officers’ identities.
“Oregon’s DMV policy illegally discriminates against the United States, violates the Supremacy clause, and is unconstitutional,” attorneys for the federal government argued in court filings.
Oregon DMV temporarily paused disbursing new undercover license plates to all federal agencies starting April 15.
Advertisement
“The DMV is currently evaluating the undercover vehicle registration program to ensure the program complies with Oregon law,” Oregon DMV Administrator Amy Joyce explained in a May 22 letter to Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate.
A recent lawsuit filed against Oregon State Police alleges the state is providing personal information to federal immigration authorities through databases, including Oregon’s DMV.
“If the DMV process for issuing undercover plates could be questioned under Oregon law, the State is at risk for additional litigation,” Joyce explained in the letter to Shumate.
The state’s review of the undercover license plate program doesn’t prevent federal vehicles from legally driving on Oregon roads.
“State and local law enforcement are unaffected by this pause and the federal agencies that participate in the program are able to continue to use their existing unexpired plates,” Kevin Glenn, a spokesperson for Gov. Tina Kotek wrote in a statement.
Advertisement
Immigration officers have relied on these license plates for enforcement, including during Operation Black Rose in Oregon. According to U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement, officers arrested more than 1,498 people between September and March, which led to 1,057 removals.
The lawsuits filed Wednesday argue the states’ DMV policies undermine ongoing federal investigations.
“Federal law enforcement agencies should not be subject to the challenged DMV policy, which is unconstitutional and recklessly disregards officer safety, public safety, and federal operational needs‚” the Justice Department’s lawsuit states.
Sign up today for OPB’s “First Look” – your daily guide to the most important news and culture stories from around the Northwest.
