A recent Massachusetts court decision has opened the door for an employee to move forward with her claim that she was paid less than male colleagues for similar work, potentially in violation of the Massachusetts Equal Pay Act (MEPA).

The case could offer important insight into the way in which courts will apply the state’s Pay Equity Act, especially regarding how “comparable work” is interpreted when job duties don’t align with job descriptions.

Background: What Is MEPA?

The Massachusetts Equal Pay Act was updated in 2017 by the Massachusetts Pay Equity Act. The intent was to provide clear guidelines on what constitutes unlawful wage discrimination and to help close the gender pay gap. MEPA, as clarified by the Pay Equity Act, defines comparable work as “work that is substantially similar in that it requires substantially similar skill, effort and responsibility and is performed under similar working conditions: provided, however, that a job title or job description alone shall not determine comparability.”

The Current Case: Job Duties vs. Job Descriptions

In the case at hand, a municipal employee claims her role as a project coordinator was comparable to that of male project managers, even though the job descriptions were different.

The employer moved for summary judgment, which will only be granted if there are no issues of material fact and the moving party (the employer) is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The judge refused to grant summary judgment to the employer, finding that unresolved factual issues about the employee’s job duties must be decided by a trial court.

A Look Back: The Everett Case That Inspired the Law

Prior to passage of the Pay Equity Act, employees bringing a claim of unequal pay under the MEPA were required to show:

1. that their jobs shared “important common characteristics” of the jobs worked by the higher paid employees.
2. that the work they performed was “comparable” to that performed by their higher paid colleagues.

This framework came from a 1990s case involving female cafeteria workers in Everett Public Schools, who argued they were paid significantly less than male custodians despite doing work of similar value. The court ultimately found the jobs too dissimilar, but the case sparked a push for legislative reform that resulted in the 2017 Pay Equity Act.

What’s at Stake Now?

While the updated MEPA offers a clear definition of comparability, it’s still unclear whether the earlier requirement about “common characteristics” remains relevant. The judge in this case suggests that it does: the employee will have to show her job shares “substantive content and actual duties” with her higher-paid peers.

This case highlights two important takeaways for employers:

1. Job descriptions matter but not more than reality. Courts may focus on what work is actually performed, not just what’s listed on paper.
2. This case could set precedent. It’s one of the first to test how courts interpret the Pay Equity Act and may influence future wage equity claims.

HR Implications for Employers

To stay in compliance and reduce risk, employers should:

• Regularly review job descriptions to ensure they match current job duties
• Audit compensation practices for potential gender-based disparities
• Train HR and managers on the evolving legal standards around pay equity

If AIM members have questions they may call the AIM HR Helpline at 800-470-6277 or helpline@aimnet.org.

If your organization needs help conducting a pay analysis, updating job descriptions, or reviewing compensation practices visit our website at www.AIMHRSolutions.com or email us at hrinfo@aimhrsolutions.com.