They law only requires the salary portion of total comp when it comes to ranges, and a judge needs to think the range is reasonable if it comes to that. Everything else can just be a "general description", so "equity" in the description probably suffices for RSUs.
And AFAIUI, they don't really have that much of a problem with actually hiring people a little above the range. It's thought that the labor market pressures of stating too low of a salary range cutting into your talent pool is an appropriate counteraction.
Sure - I know only salary needs to be specified. My point is, while the CO law (I live in CO) is a step in the right direction it doesn't have a lot of bite. There is still plenty of room for significant pay discrimination - like $100,000 of room.
I also live in CO, and know of specific cases where someone got popped for obviously too broad of a range covering most of the income percentiles.
I agree that there's still room for discrimination, but it's a step up from what it was, particularly on the lower end of the scale. I know of a lot of people in the 50k-60k range that were able to increase their salary because of this law.
And AFAIUI, they don't really have that much of a problem with actually hiring people a little above the range. It's thought that the labor market pressures of stating too low of a salary range cutting into your talent pool is an appropriate counteraction.