In another good example of how Massachusetts law is more favorable to its employees discriminated against as a Federal Republic corresponds to the federal courts have the limitation on filing wage discrimination claims. The Supreme Court of the United States decided last summer that limitation provisions Title VII requires that employees file discrimination claims with the EEOC within 180 days after the employer provides the initial decision, in the discriminatory content. Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire 127 p. Ct. 2162 (2007). The current justice to this holding was that any discriminatory action would constitute a unique discriminatory act. The decision significantly limits an employee's rights under the federal system. If an employee is set at a lower salary then another similarly situated employee, then the different content of each Paycheck would not be considered another violation, because it probably would after the Massachusetts law.

Massachusetts courts have ruled that the 180-day restriction does not apply if the unlawful conduct is of a continuing nature. This exception recognizes that some claims of discrimination with a series of events, it can be seen in their entirety, in order adequately to assess their discriminatory nature and impact. Although the limitations clock generally starts with the commission of a discriminatory act, a true "continuing violation" rewinds the clock for each discriminatory episode on the road. Cuddy v. Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., 434 Mass. 521 (2001). Where there is a provision of a continuing violation within the statutory limitations period of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151B, a complaint with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) is timely filed, even if some, or a large part of the discriminatory conduct have taken more than six months before the complaint. ID.

Both the Massachusetts Supreme Court and the Appellate Court have commented on the continuing violation doctrine to allow plaintiffs to seek damages if the alleged events are part of an ongoing pattern of discrimination, and it is a discrete violation within six-month limitations period to anchor the Earlier claims.

The waiver of article was written by Attorney Michael Goldstein of the law firm Goldstein and Clegg, LLC, a plaintiff employment law firm