The employer would be required to disclose to job applicants:

- The initial pay range for the position concerned; and

- The relevant collective bargaining provisions used to determine the remuneration associated with the position for which the applicant has applied.

The draft bill does not define “remuneration” for these purposes; the scope of the pay range, including variable remuneration, benefits, equity or similar items, should therefore be confirmed by decree or guidance.

Where a public job advertisement is issued, the pay range and relevant collective bargaining provisions would need to be included directly in the advertisement. Where there is no job advertisement, the information would need to be provided separately in writing before or during the job interview.

Potentially yes, although the draft bill does not expressly address this point. It prohibits employers from requesting information from a job applicant regarding their salary history in the context of current or previous employment relationships. As the provision does not distinguish between external and internal candidates, it could be interpreted as applying to any applicant for a position, including employees applying for an internal role.

The draft bill only addresses the prohibition on requesting information relating to an applicant’s salary history. It does not expressly deal with the use of salary information that is already available to the employer, particularly in the context of internal recruitment processes or promotions. Accordingly, the position under the current draft remains unclear

For private-sector employers, the draft bill does not introduce a specific gender-neutral wording requirement for job advertisements or titles. A separate gender-neutral wording rule is proposed for certain public-sector roles.

Employees would be entitled to information on:

- Their own pay level;

- Average pay levels, broken down by sex, for employees in the same category, i.e.  employees performing the same work or work of equal value. 

In addition, the employer would be required to make available to employees, by any means, the criteria used to determine pay, pay levels and pay progression.

The criteria used to determine pay, pay levels and pay progression would need to be made available to employees by any means. By contrast, information requested by an employee under their individual right to pay information would need to be requested and provided in writing. Employees may exercise this right directly or through union delegates or CSE members.

The criteria for assessing whether work is of equal value would be clarified. Work is of equal value where it requires a comparable set of objective and gender-neutral criteria, including professional knowledge (qualifications, diplomas or professional practice), skills derived from experience, soft skills, responsibilities, working conditions, and physical or mental strain.

The categorisation of employees performing equal work or work of equal value must be established through a company-level collective agreement or, failing such agreement, by a unilateral employer decision following consultation of the CSE. A sector-level collective agreement may also govern this categorisation. The draft bill does not, however, provide a separate exhaustive set of criteria applicable to remuneration, pay levels or pay progression more generally.

Yes. The reporting obligations would apply to employers with at least 50 employees. The category-based pay gap indicator would have to be reported every 3 years by employers with between 50 and 249 employees, and annually by employers with 250 or more employees. However, employers with between 50 and 99 employees may be exempted from this reporting requirement where a collective agreement so provides.

The draft bill does not define which elements of remuneration are to be considered for these purposes. Instead, it provides that the applicable calculation methodology and the remuneration components to be included will be determined by decree.

The draft bill does not address this point.

The deadline will be set by decree.

The information would need to be requested and received in writing, either directly by the employee or through union delegates or CSE members

No general exemption applies based on workforce size. However, an employer may refuse to disclose the relevant information where the number of employees in the relevant category falls below a threshold to be determined by decree and the disclosure would be likely, directly or indirectly, to reveal the remuneration of an identifiable employee.

Yes. Employees may request the information individually or through union delegates or CSE members; no equality body is mentioned in the draft bill.

Administrative penalties may apply for failure to provide required information. In litigation, non-compliance with transparency obligations may also affect the burden of proof, subject to a minor/unintentional breach exception

Yes. The employer would have to inform employees annually, by any means, of their right to request this information

The draft bill does not specify the language in which the relevant information must be provided. More generally, French law requires documents containing obligations for employees, or information necessary for the performance of their work, to be drafted in French, subject to very limited exceptions.

No for employees’ own remuneration: the draft bill prohibits clauses preventing employees from disclosing it. For category-based average pay information, disclosure may be limited where it could reveal an identifiable employee’s pay.

The draft bill does not address this issue expressly. At a minimum, existing pay secrecy clauses would likely become unenforceable as a result of the prohibition on contractual provisions restricting employees from disclosing information about their remuneration.

No. The draft bill provides for a phased implementation schedule rather than a single compliance date. The applicable deadlines would depend on the date of promulgation of the law and the adoption of the relevant implementing decrees, with extended implementation periods for smaller employers (see Question 1).

i. The first reporting date and reference period would be set by decree. Reporting obligations would enter into force by decree and, in any event, no later than one year after promulgation, subject to the deferred timetable below.

- The obligation to report the pay gap indicator by category of workers performing equal work or work of equal value would be subject to a deferred implementation schedule for smaller employers. It would enter into force no later than 3 years after promulgation of the law for companies employing between 100 and 149 employees, and no later than 6 years after promulgation for companies employing between 50 and 99 employees.

- Thereafter, reporting would be:

• Annually for the general gender pay gap indicators;

• Every 3 years for the category-based pay gap indicator for companies with 50–249 employees;

• Annually for the category-based pay gap indicator for companies with 250 or more employees.

Companies with at least 50 employees would have to annually report gender pay gap indicators, including a category-based indicator for employees performing equal work or work of equal value.

No uniform snapshot date is provided under the draft bill. The detailed calculation methodology is to be determined by implementing decree. In addition, the relevant headcount thresholds would apply only where the employer has met the applicable threshold continuously for 12 consecutive months.

Indicators, except the category-based indicator, would be published on the Ministry of Labour’s website. The employer may also publish them on its own website

Employers would be required to report the relevant indicators on an annual basis, in accordance with a timetable to be determined by decree. For employers with at least 100 employees, the CSE’s opinion on the reported data, calculation methodology and results would also have to be submitted to the competent administrative authority.

Except for the category-based pay gap indicator, the reported indicators would be published on the Ministry of Labour’s website. The draft bill does not provide for anonymised publication or publication solely at sector level. Accordingly, the publication regime appears to be employer-specific, subject to any further clarification in implementing decrees.

No.

Yes. The draft bill extends certain reporting obligations to employers with at least 50 employees, thereby going beyond the Directive, which generally applies those reporting requirements only to employers with 100 or more employees.

Yes. The scope and timing of certain obligations would vary according to workforce size, with different requirements and implementation deadlines applying at the thresholds of 50, 100, 150 and 250 employees.

Companies with at least 100 employees: in certain cases, the employer would have 6 months to remedy the gap. Companies with 50-99 employees: the employer would have to open negotiations within a reasonable timeframe.

Corrective measures may be set by collective agreement or, failing that, by unilateral decision or action plan filed with the competent administrative authority.

The draft bill does not create a separate “close cooperation” mechanism. In practice, the employer must consult the CSE on the relevant data, methodology, results and, for employers with at least 100 employees, justifications for category-based gaps; the CSE’s opinion is then filed with the administrative authority. Union negotiations are required at specified stages: for 50-99 employers where an unjustified category-based gap above the decree threshold is identified, and for 100+ employers where such a gap persists after the follow-up process or where the employer directly chooses the negotiation/action-plan route.

No. The draft bill does not define “close cooperation” as requiring agreement with employee representatives. The proposed regime is based on consultation, negotiation and administrative oversight mechanisms.

The draft bill does not label this as a “joint pay assessment”. It instead relies on a report/action plan process where an unjustified category-based gap above a decree-defined threshold persists.

The report would identify and analyse the reasons for pay and situation gaps between women and men; further content would be set by decree, including increases after maternity leave.

Yes. Where disclosure would be likely to reveal the remuneration of an identifiable employee, certain information would either be disclosed only to the CSE, whose members are bound by confidentiality obligations, or withheld from the requesting employee

The draft bill provides for two main levels of administrative penalties. Serious reporting and corrective-measure breaches may trigger a penalty of up to 1% of the relevant payroll, potentially increased to 2% if the employer has already been sanctioned for a similar breach in the previous five years. Other transparency breaches, such as failures relating to employee information, candidate information, accessibility, disclosure of the category-based indicator or the response to requests for details/justifications, may be subject to a fixed fine of up to EUR 450, which may also be doubled in case of repeat infringement. Certain sanctioned breaches may also expose the employer to exclusion from public procurement or concession procedures for one year.

An employee or job applicant may bring equal pay or discrimination claims. The draft bill would broaden available comparators, including statistical and hypothetical comparators where no actual comparator exists, and non-compliance with transparency obligations may affect the burden of proof.

The main workers’ representatives referred to are the CSE members and trade union delegates.

No specific substitute regime is provided where the company has no workers’ representatives. Under the draft bill, the position also varies by headcount: for 50-99 employers, the CSE would mainly be informed on indicator data/methodology/results where a CSE exists, while corrective action would be pursued through professional equality negotiations or, failing agreement, the existing action plan mechanism; for employers with at least 100 employees, the draft bill provides more formal CSE consultation, transmission of the CSE opinion to the authority, and negotiation/action-plan steps where relevant thresholds are exceeded. If there is no CSE or union delegate, the draft bill does not appear to create an alternative representative body; the employer would therefore likely proceed through the unilateral decision/action plan route where the text allows it, subject to any implementing decree.

The CSE’s rights vary by workforce size. For 50-99 employers, the CSE would be informed of the data used, calculation methodology and results of each indicator. For employers with at least 100 employees, the CSE would be informed and consulted on those items, and its opinion would be transmitted to the authority. In addition, employees, the CSE and union delegates may request details and justifications on the latest category-based indicator; the employer must give a reasoned response, inform the CSE of that response, and may refuse abusive requests or withhold information where disclosure would identify an employee’s pay

Failure to consult the CSE, transmit its opinion or respond properly to required information requests may trigger administrative penalties.

The CSE would be informed and consulted on the data used, calculation methods and indicator results, and would be informed of the employer’s response to requests for details or justifications.

Employees and job applicants may bring equal pay or discrimination claims, relying especially on expanded comparator evidence and, where transparency obligations have not been complied with, a more favourable burden-of-proof regime. The draft bill does not appear to create a standalone damages claim for the CSE or union delegates in this context, but they may request details and justifications on the category-based indicator and receive certain confidential information. Failures to consult the CSE, transmit its opinion, respond to required requests or comply with reporting/corrective-measure obligations may trigger administrative penalties.

None at this stage. Certain practical aspects are expected to be supplemented by decree.

N/A

N/A

Notable additional features of the draft bill include:

• the integration of the Directive’s requirements into existing French mechanisms, including the Professional Equality Index, CSE information and consultation procedures, and collective bargaining processes; 

• the application of certain reporting obligations to employers with at least 50 employees; 

• the requirement to establish categories of employees performing equal work or work of equal value through a collective agreement or, failing that, a unilateral employer decision; 

• the prohibition of pay secrecy clauses and enquiries into applicants’ salary history; 

• the obligation to communicate an initial pay range in job advertisements or, where no advertisement is published, in writing before or during the recruitment interview; and 

• enhanced administrative sanctions, including the possibility of exclusion from public procurement procedures for certain non-compliant employers.

Many key implementation details remain subject to implementing decrees, and the draft bill remains subject to further amendments before its enactment