This case is a powerful reminder of the significant protection the MEPA self-evaluation safe harbor can provide to Massachusetts employers facing pay equity claims.
In Woodward v. Board of Registration in Nursing, 2025 Mass. App. Unpub. LEXIS 982 (Dec. 31, 2025), the Massachusetts Appeals Court affirmed summary judgment for an employer based solely on its completion of a good faith pay equity self-evaluation under the Massachusetts Equal Pay Act (MEPA). This decision underscores the importance for Massachusetts employers to conduct proactive pay equity audits to avail themselves of the statutory safe harbor defense under General Laws c. 149, § 105A(d).
Background
Lauren Woodward, a female compliance officer employed by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health's Board of Registration in Nursing, filed suit alleging that she was paid less than two male colleagues in comparable positions in violation of MEPA and G.L. c. 151B. Woodward was hired in 2015 and placed at “Grade 13, Step 6” with an annual salary of $65,241.28 based on her 10 years of prior experience as a nurse and paralegal. Two male colleagues hired in 2019 and 2020 were placed at higher steps—Step 12 at $82,763.46 and Step 14 at $87,829.82—based on their respective prior work experience in federal and local law enforcement.
In November 2019, the defendant conducted an agencywide self-evaluation of all bargaining unit positions at the Department of Public Health to identify any impermissible gender-based pay disparities. The self-evaluation was administered pursuant to detailed guidelines issued by the commonwealth's Human Resources Division and involved an initial high-level review followed by a more detailed agency review. As a result, seven employees were identified as subject to potentially impermissible pay disparities, and their salaries were adjusted upward. However, the self-evaluation did not identify any impermissible pay disparity between Woodward and her male counterparts.
The Court's Holding
The Appeals Court affirmed summary judgment for the employer, holding that the defendant satisfied all elements of the MEPA affirmative defense.
Under G.L. c. 149, § 105A(d), an employer has an affirmative defense to pay disparity claims if, within three years prior to the commencement of the action, the employer (1) completed a self-evaluation of its pay practices in good faith and (2) can demonstrate that reasonable progress has been made toward eliminating any gender-based wage differentials identified in that evaluation.
The court rejected Woodward's arguments that the self-evaluation was untimely, was not conducted in good faith and did not show reasonable progress toward eliminating pay disparities. The court found that documentary evidence—including email correspondence, spreadsheets, Human Resources Division guidelines and supporting affidavits—demonstrated that the self-evaluation was completed by late November 2019, well within the required three-year period before the June 2020 lawsuit.
On the good faith requirement, the court referenced guidance from the Office of the Attorney General explaining that a good faith self-evaluation is one conducted in a "genuine attempt to identify any unlawful pay disparities among employees performing comparable work" and not one designed to achieve predetermined results or justify known disparities. The court found that the defendant's self-evaluation met this standard and that the plaintiff's "conclusory denials" were insufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact.
Finally, the court found "abundant evidence" that the employer made reasonable progress toward eliminating gender-based wage differentials, including identifying seven employees subject to potentially impermissible disparities and adjusting their salaries upward to correct the issue.
What This Means for Massachusetts Employers
This case is a powerful reminder of the significant protection the MEPA self-evaluation safe harbor can provide to Massachusetts employers facing pay equity claims. To invoke this defense, employers should consider the following:
Conduct Regular Pay Equity Audits
Employers should proactively conduct self-evaluations of their pay practices at least once every three years. The self-evaluation "may be of the employer's own design, so long as it is reasonable in detail and scope in light of the size of the employer, or may be consistent with standard templates or forms issued by the attorney general." These audits should be done, at least initially, on an attorney-client privileged basis. Pay equity audits often require an iterative process, and conducting the initial design phase on a privileged basis has the advantage of shielding from discovery the trial-and-error process required to land on a final audit model. Similarly, any potentially unfavorable results arising from the initial investigation and design process are best protected from discovery in subsequent litigation, particularly where the employer decides not to continue with a discoverable audit for any reason.
Act in Good Faith
Any self-evaluation must be conducted in a genuine effort to identify unlawful pay disparities—not to justify existing pay structures or reach a predetermined conclusion. The attorney general's guidance makes clear that a self-evaluation designed to achieve certain results or justify known disparities will likely not qualify as good faith.
Document the Process
This case demonstrates the importance of maintaining thorough documentation. The employer successfully defended the lawsuit in part because it had emails, spreadsheets, guidelines and supporting affidavits evidencing both the timing and substance of its self-evaluation.
Take Corrective Action
Employers must demonstrate "reasonable progress" toward eliminating any identified disparities. In Woodward, the employer's upward salary adjustments for the seven employees identified in the self-evaluation satisfied this element of the defense.
Conclusion
Woodward v. Board of Registration in Nursing illustrates that conducting a well-documented, good faith pay equity self-evaluation under MEPA can provide employers with a powerful shield against pay disparity claims—even where an employee alleges a significant pay gap with colleagues of the opposite gender. While an audit may not be a defense to other claims, including any claims brought under federal law, the audit is crucial to defending against a MEPA claim. Massachusetts employers who have not recently conducted a pay equity audit should strongly consider doing so to position themselves to invoke this valuable affirmative defense.
For More Information
If you have any questions about this Alert, please contact Bronwyn L. Roberts, Charlotte Drew, any of the attorneys in our Employment, Labor, Benefits and Immigration Practice Group or the attorney in the firm with whom you are regularly in contact.
Disclaimer: This Alert has been prepared and published for informational purposes only and is not offered, nor should be construed, as legal advice. For more information, please see the firm's full disclaimer.