Washington’s Equal Pay and Opportunities Act requires employers to include a wage scale or salary range (and, for many roles, a general description of benefits and other compensation) in job postings tied to Washington positions. The goal is to reduce pay secrecy and help close gender- and race-based pay gaps by giving applicants clearer, upfront information. In this case, people who applied to Edward Jones jobs in Washington between Jan. 1, 2023, and July 14, 2025, allege they responded to postings that omitted the required pay range, and a proposed class settlement sets aside up to $2.89 million, with claimants estimated to receive about $1,380.60 each (capped at $5,000), depending on how many valid claims are filed. The lawsuit was filed to enforce Washington’s pay-transparency rules and to seek statutory remedies for applicants who say they were denied information the law guarantees at the point of application. Edward Jones denies wrongdoing but agreed to settle to avoid the cost and uncertainty of litigation, a common outcome in wage-and-hour and employment-disclosure class actions. Beyond potential payments, the case matters because it reinforces that pay-range disclosures aren’t optional “best practices” in Washington—they’re legal requirements that can create significant financial exposure if employers use template postings, third-party recruiters, or multi-state listings that don’t conform to state-specific rules. More broadly, this settlement sits within a fast-growing national shift toward pay transparency, with states such as California, Colorado, and New York adopting similar posting mandates and regulators increasingly scrutinizing noncompliant ads. Like other transparency cases, the practical lesson is compliance hygiene: employers need consistent internal pay bands, auditing of job-board feeds, and controls to ensure every Washington-facing posting includes the required range and related compensation details. The structure of this settlement—cash payments to applicants, attorneys’ fees, and potential cy pres donation of residual funds—also mirrors how courts frequently resolve large applicant classes when individual damages are hard to prove but statutory rights are at stake.