New England Biz Law Update
The Massachusetts Appeals Court is weighing a case that could offer the first appellate guidance on the “safe harbor” provision of the Massachusetts Equal Pay Act, a key protection for employers who proactively review and address gender-based pay disparities.
The case centers on a state employee who alleges that she was paid significantly less than two male colleagues performing comparable work.
At the trial court level, her claims were dismissed after the employer successfully invoked the MEPA safe harbor defense, which protects employers that complete a timely self-evaluation of their pay practices, conduct it in good faith, and make reasonable progress toward eliminating identified disparities.
On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the employer failed to meet its burden on all three elements and that the court improperly required her to disprove the defense.
Legal observers say that the Appeals Court’s decision could set an important precedent for how much documentation and progress employers must show when relying on MEPA’s safe harbor.
During oral arguments, judges questioned whether the employer sufficiently evaluated the plaintiff’s pay relative to her male peers and whether the record adequately explained why she wasn’t included in the agency’s salary adjustments.
Amicus briefs from legal advocacy groups emphasized that employers should bear the burden of proving the defense and that juries, not judges, should resolve disputes over good faith and reasonable progress.
This case underscores the importance of conducting meaningful, well-documented self-evaluations if employers want to claim protection under MEPA.
Employers that fail to fully assess pay across comparable roles or who exclude potentially affected employees may still face exposure.
The Appeals Court’s decision, once issued, could clarify expectations for employers seeking to rely on the safe harbor moving forward.
