Contact
Boston
Providence
March 16, 2018
Massachusetts Equal Pay Act: 5 Things Every Employer Should Do Before It Takes Effect On July 1, 2018
In 2016, Massachusetts enacted an Act to Establish Pay Equity which updated and replaced Chapter 149 Section 105A and is also known as the Massachusetts Equal Pay Act (“MEPA”). Employers must be in full compliance with MEPA by July 1, 2018. Recently, the Attorney General’s Office, which is charged with enforcing MEPA, released guidance for employers. Below are five action items all employers should consider undertaking prior to MEPA’s July 1 effective date.
1. Conduct a self-evaluation of your pay practices to qualify for MEPA’s affirmative defense.
MEPA provides a complete defense against any liability under the statute for employers that have conducted a qualified, self-evaluation of their pay practices within the past three years. By qualifying for this affirmative defense, employers can avoid the significant monetary penalties imposed by MEPA for violations, including double damages and, perhaps more importantly, liability for retroactive payments to affected employees uncovered during the evaluation.
To qualify for the affirmative defense, an employer’s self-evaluation must be reasonable in detail and scope, and must likewise reflect reasonable progress toward eliminating any uncovered pay disparities by changing affected employees’ salaries so that employees performing comparable work are paid equally. If an employer’s self-evaluation is insufficient but made in good faith, the employer will not be liable for double damages under MEPA but will still be liable for damages in an amount of what should have been paid to the employees.
Employers wishing to conduct a self-evaluation should retain qualified legal counsel to do so. This will help ensure that the evaluation is sufficiently reasonable to qualify for the affirmative defense, and that appropriate portions of it are subject to the attorney-client privilege.
2. Update your employee handbook and retrain staff to comply with the new human resources requirements in MEPA.
MEPA create several new requirements concerning how employers interact with new and existing employees. These include, primarily, prohibiting employers from: (1) restricting employees from discussing wages; and, (2) seeking salary/wage history concerning prospective employees. The AG’s guidance clarifies these prohibitions by, among other things, outlining the scope of each, and providing limited exceptions. Most employers will have to retrain their HR staff and hiring managers to comply with the parameters of these new requirements to avoid inadvertent MEPA violations. Additionally, written employer policies and handbooks will need to be revised to account for these new rules.
3. Reevaluate your compensation and payroll systems to ensure they comply with MEPA’s “Permissible Variations in Pay.”
MEPA seeks to equalize pay for comparable work, but it does not outlaw every single variation in pay. MEPA explicitly permits six (and only six) compensation variations for the performance of comparable. The exemptions apply when the variation is based on at least one of the following factors:
- A system rewarding seniority;
- A merit system;
- A system measuring quantity or quality of production, sales, or revenue;
- The geographic location of a job;
- Education, training, or experience; or
- Regular and permissible travel requirements of the job.
To qualify for any of these exemptions, the compensation variation must be completely explained by one or a combination of the six exemptions outlined above. If an employer intends to defend a compensation variation based on an exemption, the employer should be sure to have written and updated policies that reflect bonafide and uniform application of the exemption. For example, if an employer intends to increase an employee’s compensation based on seniority, the employer should have in place a written policy detailing the scope and parameters of its seniority-based compensation system.
4. Update job descriptions and titles to confirm which employees are performing comparable work.
MEPA requires that employees doing “comparable work” be paid equally. To determine whether a job is comparable under MEPA, an employer must evaluate the skill, effort, and responsibility required to perform the job. According to the AG’s guidance, job descriptions and titles, while not dispositive of the question of whether work is “comparable,” may be “helpful” in making that determination. Accurate and updated job descriptions and titles, therefore, can serve as powerful evidence for an employer bearing on the question of whether individuals are performing “comparable work.” Employers should undertake a detailed review of all job descriptions and titles to ensure they are correct and include a description of the skill, effort and responsibility required to perform the job. Employers should also consider instituting a policy requiring periodic reviews and revisions of job descriptions and titles to ensure they remain accurate and complete.
5. Revise employee compensation structures beyond simple wages paid.
MEPA, like many Massachusetts wage and hour rules, defines wages broadly. Wages under MEPA includes all forms of remuneration including wages, commissions, bonuses, profit-sharing, paid personal time off, vacation and holiday pay, expense accounts, care and gas allowances, retirement plans, insurance, and other benefits. However, if an employee declines an employer’s offered benefit, for example insurance, an employer is not required to pay that employee more in wages to satisfy the statute. An employer’s MEPA responsibility for benefits, merely requires that all employees performing comparable work have equal access and opportunity to participate in the same benefits.
Nonetheless, the more types of wages and benefits an employer pays, the more opportunity there is for wage disparity, and the more complicated the determination of equal pay becomes. Employers should evaluate all the wage structures they currently offer employees, including and especially seemingly minor fringe benefits that may not be automatically considered as “wages” (e.g., gas cards, company car, subsidized meals), and revise any policies concerning those wages that may impact their compliance with MEPA.
Sign up for email alerts
© 2021 | website: visual dialogue
News
Health Law
-
August 27, 2020
Best Lawyers in America® 2021 Recognizes Summit Health Law Partners Attorneys
-
June 03, 2020
Adelita Orefice, Esq. Honored by Rhode Island Monthly
-
April 17, 2020
Healthcare fraud warning from the Massachusetts U.S. Attorney arising out of COVID-19
-
April 10, 2020
Financial Solutions for Small Businesses Disrupted by COVID-19
-
March 26, 2020
Massachusetts and the Federal Government Expand Telemedicine Services and Coverage in Response to COVID-19
-
March 23, 2020
COVID-19 Update for Our Clients
-
August 27, 2019
Best Lawyers in America® 2020 Recognizes Summit Health Law Partners Attorneys
-
November 06, 2018
Sweeping New Opioid Law Extends Anti-Kickback Liability to Private Insurance Market in Three Areas
-
November 05, 2018
Adelita Orefice Earns Certification in Healthcare Compliance
-
October 22, 2018
Super Lawyers® Recognizes Summit Health Law Partners Attorneys
-
September 18, 2018
| Crystal Bloom, Andrew Levine
DPH releases proposed amendments to Determination of Need regulation
-
August 20, 2018
| Robert Blaisdell
Governor Baker Signs Sweeping Reform on Employee non-Competition Agreements Law
-
August 15, 2018
Best Lawyers in America® recognizes Summit Health Law Partners attorneys for their excellence in law.
-
October 24, 2017
| Jeffrey Chase-Lubitz
Legal Issues and the Aging Physician
-
October 11, 2017
| Andrew Levine
Department of Public Health Presentation on DoN Regulations
-
August 22, 2017
Best Lawyers, Lawyers Weekly, and Superlawyers Recognize DBS Attorneys
-
July 20, 2017
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rules that terminating an employee for using medical marijuana may constitute handicap discrimination.
-
February 16, 2017
| Diane Moes
The ACA May Be in Jeopardy, but MACRA Isn’t Likely to Go Away
-
January 16, 2017
| Andrew Levine, Crystal Bloom
DPH Adopts New Determination of Need Regulations
-
November 09, 2016
| Andrew Levine, Crystal Bloom, Adelita Orefice
UPDATE: Preliminary Injunction Temporarily Halts Implementation of Final Rule Prohibiting Pre-Dispute Arbitration Contracts in LTC Facilities
-
October 24, 2016
| Andrew Levine, Crystal Bloom, Adelita Orefice
UPDATE: Nursing Facilities Sue HHS to Block Ban on Pre-Dispute Binding Arbitration Agreements
-
October 17, 2016
| Andrew Levine, Crystal Bloom, Adelita Orefice
HHS Prohibits Long-Term Care Facilities from Using Pre-Dispute Binding Arbitration Agreements
-
August 31, 2016
| Robert Blaisdell,
Massachusetts Enacts Equal Pay Act: What employers can do now to prepare for its implementation
-
August 29, 2016
| Andrew Levine, Crystal Bloom
Massachusetts Department of Public Health Announces Major Determination of Need Regulatory Reform Initiative
-
August 29, 2016
New MA Prescription Monitoring Program Goes Live August 22, 2016
-
August 15, 2016
| Crystal Bloom, Amanda Beauregard
OPPS 2017 – Implementation of Section 603 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015
-
August 12, 2016
| Robert Blaisdell
CMS cracks down on “abuse” of nursing home residents via social media
-
July 20, 2016
| Kelly McGee, Adelita Orefice
Rhode Island Prohibits Physician Non-Competes
-
June 28, 2016
Massachusetts Trial Court Dismisses Wrongful Employment Termination Claim Based on Medical Marijuana Use
-
May 17, 2016
| Robert Blaisdell,
Noncompliance with Security Deposit Law Could Be a Defense to Eviction
-
April 19, 2016
| Crystal Bloom
Update Regarding DPH Increased Oversight of Long-Term Care Facilities
-
April 11, 2016
| Crystal Bloom
DPH Strengthens Oversight of Long-Term Care Facilities
-
March 23, 2016
| Andrew Levine, Andrew Ferrer
Governor Baker Signs Legislation Designed To Address Opioid Crisis
-
March 23, 2016
| Kelly McGee
Phase 2 HIPAA Compliance Audits Set To Begin
-
March 22, 2016
| Robert Blaisdell,
Failure to execute HIPAA business associate agreement and conduct risk analysis costs health system $1.55M
-
February 11, 2016
| Kelly McGee
Proposed Rule Modifies 42 CFR Part 2, the Confidentiality of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Patient Records Regulations
-
November 16, 2015
| Andrew Levine, Crystal Bloom, Nicole Sexton
Medicare Hospital Reimbursement Changes
-
October 26, 2015
Diane Moes named one of Mass Lawyers Weekly’s “Top Women of Law”
-
June 12, 2015
OIG Fraud Alert Warns Doctors That They Will Be Personally Accountable for Violations of Federal Anti-Kickback Statute
-
May 15, 2015
| Andrew Levine
Long Term Care Facility Regulatory Update
-
April 23, 2015
| Andrew Levine
Department of Public Health - new process for the addition of licensed mobile or portable health care units
-
April 21, 2015
| Paul Barrett, Jeffrey Chase-Lubitz
OIG Releases Compliance And Oversight Guide for Healthcare Boards
-
April 20, 2015
| Andrew Levine,
Massachusetts Department of Public Health Revamps Application Process for Registered Medical Marijuana Dispensaries
-
April 16, 2015
| Crystal Bloom, Andrew Levine
Proposed Legislation Will Increase Legal Authority of Health Policy Commission and Attorney General
-
March 15, 2015
| Andrew Levine
Health Policy Commission Releases Proposed Regulation Concerning Nurse-to-Patient Ratios | Public hearings scheduled for late March and early April
-
March 06, 2015
| Robert Blaisdell
Court Holds Officers and Directors of Non-Profit Healthcare Facility Personally Liable to Creditors for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
-
September 17, 2014
| Andrew Levine, Robert Blaisdell, Kathleen Harrell
Legal Issues Associated with MA Registered Marijuana Dispensaries: An article by Andrew Levine, Robert Blaisdell, and Kathleen Harrell
-
July 14, 2014
| Andrew Levine
Important Compounding Pharmacy Law Empowers Board of Registration in Pharmacy
-
June 20, 2014
| Crystal Bloom, Andrew Levine
Public Health Council Approves Amendments to Determination of Need Regulations
-
June 03, 2014
| Diane Moes
U.S. District Court Ruling Vacating HRSA’s 340B Program Orphan Drug Exclusion Rule Casts Uncertainty on Forthcoming "Mega-Rule"
-
May 28, 2014
| Andrew Levine
New Guidelines for Dementia Special Care Unit Regulations
-
January 10, 2014
| Andrew Levine
MassHealth Changes regulations to comply with Affordable Care Act
Litigation
-
August 27, 2020
Best Lawyers in America® 2021 Recognizes Summit Health Law Partners Attorneys
-
May 12, 2020
First Federal Indictment Arising Out of Fraudulent Applications for Paycheck Protection Program Loans Highlights Focus on COVID-19 Related Investigations
-
April 30, 2020
Impact of COVID-19 on Reporting Foreign Components
-
March 27, 2020
| Michelle Peirce
Scam Warning for Massachusetts Physicians
-
August 27, 2019
Best Lawyers in America® 2020 Recognizes Summit Health Law Partners Attorneys
-
October 22, 2018
Super Lawyers® Recognizes Summit Health Law Partners Attorneys
-
August 15, 2018
Best Lawyers in America® recognizes Summit Health Law Partners attorneys for their excellence in law.
-
April 05, 2018
In Russia probe, the difference between ‘target’ and ‘subject’ matters a great deal
-
February 22, 2018
Landmark Supreme Court Decision Substantially Narrows the Applicability of the Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Provision
-
August 22, 2017
Best Lawyers, Lawyers Weekly, and Superlawyers Recognize DBS Attorneys
-
July 20, 2017
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court rules that terminating an employee for using medical marijuana may constitute handicap discrimination.
-
August 31, 2016
| Robert Blaisdell,
Massachusetts Enacts Equal Pay Act: What employers can do now to prepare for its implementation
-
August 12, 2016
| Robert Blaisdell
CMS cracks down on “abuse” of nursing home residents via social media
-
June 28, 2016
3 Things Every Massachusetts Podiatrist Should Know About the Proposed Amendments to Podiatry Regulations
-
June 01, 2016
How Recent Changes to the Fair Labor Standards Act’s “White Collar” Exemptions May Affect Your Small Business
-
March 25, 2015
Avoiding Securities Fraud Prosecution: Using the SEC’s 2015 examination priorities as a compliance roadmap when dealing with retail investors.
-
December 29, 2014
| Bruce Singal
Was the Ferguson grand jury rigged?
-
March 26, 2014
Employer Avoids Discrimination Trial Thanks to Robust Investigation and Documentation Policies
-
February 13, 2014
| Michelle Peirce
Shielding Companies Against Whistleblower Suits
-
March 01, 2010
Trials Facing Women Litigators and Tips For Success: Michelle Peirce
-
“Official Immunity” for Private Research Institutions: How a recent federal court decision impacts civil tort lawsuits arising out of research misconduct inquiries / investigations.
-
Research Misconduct Penalties and How to Avoid Them
Corporate
-
August 20, 2018
| Robert Blaisdell
Governor Baker Signs Sweeping Reform on Employee non-Competition Agreements Law
-
August 22, 2017
Best Lawyers, Lawyers Weekly, and Superlawyers Recognize DBS Attorneys
-
June 28, 2016
Massachusetts Trial Court Dismisses Wrongful Employment Termination Claim Based on Medical Marijuana Use
-
June 28, 2016
3 Things Every Massachusetts Podiatrist Should Know About the Proposed Amendments to Podiatry Regulations
Research Misconduct
-
May 18, 2020
Why Grantees Must be Prepared for Heightened Scrutiny of Conflicts of Interest in Foreign Support for US Research
-
March 23, 2016
| Andrew Levine, Andrew Ferrer
Governor Baker Signs Legislation Designed To Address Opioid Crisis
-
What is Research Misconduct and Why Should I Care?
-
“Official Immunity” for Private Research Institutions: How a recent federal court decision impacts civil tort lawsuits arising out of research misconduct inquiries / investigations.
-
Research Misconduct Penalties and How to Avoid Them
This website presents general information about Barrett & Singal and is not intended as legal advice nor should you consider it as such. You should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.
Please note that contacting Barrett & Singal by email, telephone or facsimile will not establish an attorney-client relationship, obligate us to act as your attorney or impose an obligation on either the law firm or the receiving lawyer to keep the transmitted information confidential. Completion of Barrett & Singal’s new client intake protocol, including without limitation the firm’s conflicts checking process and an engagement letter, is necessary to establish an attorney-client relationship. Absent a current attorney-client relationship with Barrett & Singal, any information or documents communicated or transmitted by you to Barrett & Singal will not be treated as confidential, secret or protected in any way. If you are not a current client of Barrett & Singal, please do not send any confidential information to us through this web site or otherwise concerning any potential or actual legal matter you have. Before providing any confidential information to us, you must obtain permission to do so from one of the firm’s lawyers. By clicking "Accept," you acknowledge that we have no obligation to maintain the confidentiality of any information you submit to us unless we already represent you or unless we have agreed to receive limited confidential material/information from you as a prospective client.
If you would like to discuss becoming a client, please contact one of our attorneys to arrange for a meeting or telephone conference. If you wish to disclose confidential information to a lawyer in the firm before an attorney-client relationship is established, the protections that the law firm will provide to such information from a prospective client should be discussed with the firm attorney before such information is submitted. Thank you for your interest in Barrett & Singal.