As Massachusetts employers prepare for the October 29, 2025 implementation of the Frances Perkins Workplace Equity Act’s salary disclosure requirements, initial compliance guidance has focused on understanding the basic legal obligations. However, experiences from other states with similar laws reveal that successful implementation requires strategic planning that extends far beyond simply posting salary ranges. This follow-up analysis examines the practical challenges and advanced strategies employers should consider based on real-world enforcement patterns and litigation trends from established pay transparency jurisdictions.

Massachusetts as Opposed to Other Jurisdictions

Enforcement Is More Aggressive Than Expected

While Massachusetts’ enforcement structure might appear less threatening with warnings for first offenses and no private right of action for general violations, experiences in other states demonstrate that enforcement agencies take pay transparency violations seriously from day one.

In New York City, the Commission on Human Rights has initiated complaints against dozens of employers since November 2022, targeting companies across industries from law firms to major job platforms like Indeed and Monster. The NYC approach reveals that enforcement extends beyond mere disclosure to scrutinizing the quality and reasonableness of posted ranges. Regulators are developing strategies to discourage “wide salary ranges” that may not reflect genuine “good faith” expectations.

Washington State’s experience provides an even starker warning. The state’s Equal Pay and Opportunities Act generated what industry observers describe as “an industry of class action litigation with six-, seven-, and even eight-figure settlements” due to steep mandatory penalties. The litigation became so pervasive that the state legislature enacted emergency amendments in 2025, introducing cure periods and reducing mandatory damages. This demonstrates how well-intentioned compliance requirements can create unintended litigation risks.

The “Good Faith” Standard Is Subjective and Scrutinized

Massachusetts requires employers to post pay ranges they “reasonably and in good faith expect to pay.” While this may sound straightforward, enforcement agencies and courts in other jurisdictions have shown that “good faith” is more than a legal checkbox-it’s a substantive standard that regulators will examine.

Minnesota’s law explicitly prohibits “open-ended” salary ranges, while Illinois permits employers to base ranges on internal pay scales, actual compensation for equivalent roles, or budgeted amounts. The key insight is that defensible ranges require objective, data-driven methodologies. Posting a range of “$50,000 – $200,000” for a single position would likely fail the good faith test and invite scrutiny.

Employers must be prepared to document and defend their range-setting methodology. This means maintaining records of market research, internal equity analyses, and the specific factors that justify both the range breadth and the individual placement of employees within that range.

Third-Party Liability Creates Hidden Compliance Risks

One of the most overlooked aspects of pay transparency compliance involves third-party job postings. Massachusetts law explicitly holds employers responsible for ensuring that recruiters, placement agencies, and job boards comply with disclosure requirements. This creates a significant compliance burden that many employers underestimate.

The persistent nature of online job boards compounds this challenge. Even if an employer corrects a non­ compliant posting, cached or archived versions may remain visible across multiple platforms, creating ongoing liability exposure. Illinois law emphasizes this by requiring employers to provide clear pay and benefits information to any third parties posting on their behalf, with full employer accountability for third-party compliance.

This means employers must:

• Audit all third-party relationships and contractual obligations
• Provide detailed compliance training to external recruiters
• Implement monitoring systems to verify third-party adherence
• Establish protocols for correcting non-compliant postings across all platforms

Advanced Strategic Considerations

Conducting Privileged Pay Equity Audits

The most sophisticated employers are conducting comprehensive pay equity audits under attorney-client privilege before the law takes effect. This strategy serves multiple purposes: identifying and correcting pay disparities before they become public, demonstrating good faith compliance efforts, and protecting sensitive compensation analysis from discovery in potential litigation.

The audit process should encompass the organization’s entire compensation philosophy, including career architecture, job descriptions, pay grades, and geographic considerations. However, simply identifying disparities isn’t sufficient-employers must develop clear remediation plans with documented rationales for all adjustments to ensure consistency and defensibility.

Managing Internal Equity and Employee Relations

Pay transparency laws inevitably transform internal dynamics around compensation discussions. Employees will conduct their own “pay audits” once salary ranges become visible, leading to increased questions about individual placement within ranges and requests for adjustments.

Research from the University of California Riverside reveals complex psychological impacts of pay transparency. Top performers often develop heightened compensation expectations and are more likely to demand substantial raises when aware of peer earnings. Conversely, lower performers may become demoralized and less motivated to improve performance or collaborate when they learn about colleagues’ higher compensation.

These dynamics require proactive management strategies:

• Develop clear communication protocols explaining how pay ranges are determined
• Train managers to address compensation questions with objective, defensible reasoning
• Implement performance management systems that clearly link pay progression to measurable outcomes
• Create transparent career advancement pathways within posted ranges

Multi-State Compliance Complexity

Massachusetts joins a rapidly expanding patchwork of state and local pay transparency laws, each with distinct requirements. The variation in employee thresholds (Massachusetts: 25+, Illinois: 15+, New York City: 4+), disclosure scope (Massachusetts excludes benefits while Washington requires their inclusion), and enforcement mechanisms create significant compliance challenges for multi-state employers.

The impact on remote work adds another layer of complexity. Massachusetts law covers remote workers who report to Massachusetts-based offices, but determining jurisdiction for truly location-agnostic roles remains challenging. Many sophisticated employers are adopting uniform approaches, applying the most stringent requirements from any jurisdiction across all their operations to simplify compliance and reduce violation risks.

Preparing for Cultural Transformation

Beyond Legal Compliance: Building Transparency Culture

Successful pay transparency implementation requires fundamental cultural change beyond legal compliance. Without genuine organizational commitment to openness and accountability, technical compliance may be achieved while failing to realize the intended benefits of enhanced trust and employee engagement.

This cultural transformation demands:

• Leadership modeling of transparent communication about compensation philosophy
• Regular training for all management levels on discussing pay equity
• Systems for employees to raise compensation questions without fear of retaliation
• Integration of pay transparency principles into broader diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives

Communication Strategy Development

Effective communication is as critical as legal compliance itself. Without clear, proactive communication, employees often make negative assumptions about pay practices. Organizations should develop comprehensive communication plans that articulate compensation philosophies, explain range-setting methodologies, and establish clear expectations for pay progression.

The communication strategy should address both internal and external audiences, ensuring consistency across all recruitment materials, internal announcements, and employee discussions about compensation.

Conclusion: Transforming Compliance into Competitive Advantage

The Massachusetts Pay Transparency Act represents more than a regulatory obligation-it’s an opportunity for strategic differentiation in the talent market. Organizations that approach implementation thoughtfully, learning from other states’ experiences and investing in comprehensive preparation, can transform a compliance requirement into a competitive advantage.

The most successful employers will be those who recognize that pay transparency is fundamentally about building trust, demonstrating commitment to equity, and creating cultures where compensation discussions enhance rather than undermine employee engagement. By embracing this broader vision while maintaining rigorous attention to legal compliance details, Massachusetts employers can position themselves as industry leaders in fair and transparent employment practices.

With the October 2025 deadline just months away, the complexity of implementation-from conducting privileged audits to training managers and coordinating multi-state compliance-demands urgent strategic action. Early adopters who begin implementation now will not only ensure compliance but also gain valuable experience in managing the cultural and operational changes that pay transparency demands.

For employers seeking guidance on developing a comprehensive plan as it relates to the Massachusetts Pay Transparency Act or in addressing specific compliance issues, the CMBG3 team stands ready to assist.