Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Melissa Pacheco v. University of Massachusetts, et al.
Date: 01-17-2025
Case Number: 23-P-984
Judge: Not Available
Court: Superior Court, Suffolk County, Massachusetts
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Click Here For The Best Boston Employment Lawyer Directory
Defendant's Attorney: Massachusetts Attorney General's Office
Description:
Boston, Massachusetts employment law lawyer represented the Plaintiff on a sex discrimination claim.
The plaintiff, an assistant dean at the University of Massachusetts (UMass), claimed the defendants unlawfully discriminated against her on the basis of sex in determining her starting salary when she was promoted to that position. Her amended complaint included counts under both the Massachusetts Equal Pay Act (MEPA), G. L. c. 149, § 105A, and G. L. c. 151B, § 4. A judge of the Superior Court (motion judge) allowed the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the c. 151B sex discrimination claims and as to the MEPA claim against Karim; the MEPA claims against Gunasekaran and UMass were tried to a jury before a second judge (trial judge). The plaintiff prevailed on her MEPA claims at trial. She appeals from the summary judgments entered on the sex discrimination claims.
* * *
Legal issue Was the summary judgment properly granted for defendants on claims of sex-based salary discrimination under Massachusetts law?
Headnote
EMPLOYMENT LAW. SEX DISCRIMINATION. The case addresses an appeal regarding sex discrimination claims under G. L. c. 151B, where the plaintiff, an assistant dean, alleged unlawful discrimination by the University of Massachusetts in determining her starting salary, contending it was due to her gender.
EMPLOYMENT LAW. MASSACHUSETTS EQUAL PAY ACT (MEPA). The judgment reviews the plaintiff's successful claim under the Massachusetts Equal Pay Act (MEPA), analyzing the differences between MEPA requirements, which do not necessitate proof of discriminatory intent, and the sex discrimination claims requiring evidence of discriminatory animus.
CIVIL PROCEDURE. SUMMARY JUDGMENT. The court affirmed the summary judgment granted for the defendants on the plaintiff's c. 151B claims, emphasizing the absence of genuine issues of material fact regarding discriminatory intent sufficient to proceed to trial.
CIVIL PROCEDURE. COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL. The decision explores the plaintiff's argument for applying collateral estoppel based on a prior jury verdict in a MEPA claim, and the court's rationale for rejecting this based on procedural grounds and the differences in legal standards between the two claims.
Key Phrases Assistant dean promotion. Massachusetts Equal Pay Act. Sex discrimination claims. Salary analysis. Summary judgment.
The plaintiff, an assistant dean at the University of Massachusetts (UMass), claimed the defendants unlawfully discriminated against her on the basis of sex in determining her starting salary when she was promoted to that position. Her amended complaint included counts under both the Massachusetts Equal Pay Act (MEPA), G. L. c. 149, § 105A, and G. L. c. 151B, § 4. A judge of the Superior Court (motion judge) allowed the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the c. 151B sex discrimination claims and as to the MEPA claim against Karim; the MEPA claims against Gunasekaran and UMass were tried to a jury before a second judge (trial judge). The plaintiff prevailed on her MEPA claims at trial. She appeals from the summary judgments entered on the sex discrimination claims.
* * *
Legal issue Was the summary judgment properly granted for defendants on claims of sex-based salary discrimination under Massachusetts law?
Headnote
EMPLOYMENT LAW. SEX DISCRIMINATION. The case addresses an appeal regarding sex discrimination claims under G. L. c. 151B, where the plaintiff, an assistant dean, alleged unlawful discrimination by the University of Massachusetts in determining her starting salary, contending it was due to her gender.
EMPLOYMENT LAW. MASSACHUSETTS EQUAL PAY ACT (MEPA). The judgment reviews the plaintiff's successful claim under the Massachusetts Equal Pay Act (MEPA), analyzing the differences between MEPA requirements, which do not necessitate proof of discriminatory intent, and the sex discrimination claims requiring evidence of discriminatory animus.
CIVIL PROCEDURE. SUMMARY JUDGMENT. The court affirmed the summary judgment granted for the defendants on the plaintiff's c. 151B claims, emphasizing the absence of genuine issues of material fact regarding discriminatory intent sufficient to proceed to trial.
CIVIL PROCEDURE. COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL. The decision explores the plaintiff's argument for applying collateral estoppel based on a prior jury verdict in a MEPA claim, and the court's rationale for rejecting this based on procedural grounds and the differences in legal standards between the two claims.
Key Phrases Assistant dean promotion. Massachusetts Equal Pay Act. Sex discrimination claims. Salary analysis. Summary judgment.
Outcome:
Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of Melissa Pacheco v. University of Massachusetts, et al.?
The outcome was: Affirmed
Which court heard Melissa Pacheco v. University of Massachusetts, et al.?
This case was heard in Superior Court, Suffolk County, Massachusetts, MA. The presiding judge was Not Available.
Who were the attorneys in Melissa Pacheco v. University of Massachusetts, et al.?
Plaintiff's attorney: Click Here For The Best Boston Employment Lawyer Directory. Defendant's attorney: Massachusetts Attorney General's Office.
When was Melissa Pacheco v. University of Massachusetts, et al. decided?
This case was decided on January 17, 2025.