State and Local Governments Battle Over Who’s the Boss of Legislating the Workplace

Local governments often lead on workplace issues like paid sick leave, discrimination, and pay equity. But, how and whether cities and counties can – or even should – legislate the workplace varies across the country, with recent developments highlighting the struggle for supremacy between state and local officials.

In Nebraska, after the state revised minimum wage standards established by voters, in May 2026 the city of Lincoln enacted a minimum wage ordinance that uses the standard voters had approved – annual adjustments based on inflation, rounded up to the nearest nickel – rather than the state’s preferred preset 1.75% annual increases. Lincoln’s ordinance was enacted notwithstanding a state attorney general (AG) opinion letter that concluded the state minimum wage law would preempt any local minimum wage ordinance. In response to Lincoln’s actions, the AG sued and recently a state trial court judge enjoined the city from enforcing its ordinance. Not deterred by the state’s lawsuit, in July a different city – Omaha – enacted its own minimum wage ordinance that also calls for annual adjustments based on inflation.

Similar potential conflicts are brewing in New York. Tompkins County is studying whether to enact a local minimum wage ordinance, whereas New York City has introduced a bill to create such a law. These efforts are occurring with local legislators’ knowledge of a state appellate court ruling from the 1960s that held the state “occup[ies] the entire field” when it comes to establishing the minimum wage in the Empire State.

Some local governments are willing to step aside once the state has caught up on an issue. For example, in Minnesota, Bloomington – like Duluth before it – decided to repeal its paid sick and safe time ordinance in April 2026 due to a later-enacted state law. 

Sometimes a state might allow pre-existing local ordinances to remain in place, like Maryland did with its paid sick and safe time law. Other times, however, localities are completely removed from the playing field, which is what New Jersey did when it enacted a statewide paid sick and safe time law that preempted the then-in-existence 13 local ordinances.

There are other instances of a state not wanting to debate their junior partners about workplace standards. For example, in Texas, the state’s “Death Star” law preempted local governments from enacting workplace legislation that conflicted with state law. Although the local rebellion initially succeeded in challenging the law, the state empire struck back, and a state appellate court reversed the trial court decision. Most recently, in June 2026, the local governments asked the state supreme court to resolve the dispute.

Ohio and Pennsylvania are examples of what may happen when a state does not have a comprehensive preemption law like the one in place in Texas. While both Ohio and Pennsylvania do have preemption laws that prohibit local regulation of some categories of employment laws, such as laws regulating employee wages and benefits, neither state’s preemption statute covers antidiscrimination and fair employment practices. Beginning in 2017, localities in both states began to enact ordinances related to pay equity, specifically, ordinances that (1) prohibit an employer from inquiring into a job applicant’s wage or salary history and/or (2) require an employer to disclose the wage or wage range for a job position in each job advertisement. At present, the four largest cities in Ohio have pay equity ordinances, and in Pennsylvania, the city of Philadelphia and five counties have such laws on the books. The Ohio and Pennsylvania state legislatures have considered pay transparency and salary history bills in almost every legislative session for the past decade, but it remains unlikely that such laws will pass at the state level in either state in the near future. Thus, because these states neither have specific preemption laws nor their own pay equity laws that they could arguably occupy the field, as in Nebraska, there is little room to challenge local regulation in this area.

Compliance challenges can arise with any law. When multiple levels of government establish standards connected to a particular subject, developing compliant practices can be a tougher needle for employers to thread. Although the federal government might be seen as playing a less active – or more selective – role in governing the workplace, depending on the state – or states – where an employer operates, keeping abreast of, and navigating, a patchwork of laws has become a cost of doing business.