The October 1 Posting Check by Glover & Co.

Your Lead Groomer posting — the October 1 check

First, what's working: this ad knows what it wants. Full-time is stated, the experience bar is clear, and "own tools preferred" tells candidates something real. That specificity is exactly the habit the new law rewards — we're extending it to pay and benefits, not starting from scratch.

One timing note: you're posting in August, so the ad isn't unlawful on day one — but a posting still live on October 1 must comply on October 1. A groomer search can run five weeks; post it compliant now and never think about it again.

Two gaps to fix:

No wage or wage range. "Competitive pay based on experience" doesn't contain a number. The statute makes it unlawful to fail to disclose "the wages or wage range for such position" in the posting itself. (If every lead groomer earns one fixed rate, a single number also satisfies the statute — a nuance most summaries miss.)
2.

No description of benefits. "Great benefits!" describes nothing. "Benefits" is statutorily defined: health insurance, retirement, fringe benefits, paid leave, and other non-wage compensation. List what you actually offer.

Two things that don't apply, so you can stop wondering: your size doesn't exempt you (no employer-size threshold — 22 employees is squarely covered), and you do not need the 100+ employee pay-code guide.

The rewritten block, ready to paste:

Pay: $[min]–$[max] per hour, depending on experience and qualifications.
Benefits: [what you actually offer — e.g., health insurance contribution, [X] days paid time off, paid holidays].

Next steps: confirm the benefits line against reality, drop the block into the ad, and keep a note of how you set the range — the statute now defines a "good faith" range and your written record is the proof.

Citation: Public Act 26-12 (sHB 5003), Sec. 2, amending CGS § 31-40z, effective October 1, 2026.
Current through Public Act 26-12 · verified August 2026.
Educational, not legal advice. Seek counsel if you would like a legal opinion.
AI does not replace human judgment — this is a decision you own.