“The parties agree that all the pool psychologists, including Mundell, possessed the same fundamental qualifications for the role: doctoral degrees and licenses to practice psychology in Maine, and comparable experience and skills in providing psychological services.”

💡 Acadia could not claim the wage gap was based on differences in education, credentials, or skill level.

“Acadia also concedes that it did not pay its pool psychologists differently pursuant to any seniority system, difference in shift or time of day worked, or merit increase system.”

💡 The hospital admitted it used none of the three lawful justifications for pay differences under Maine’s Equal Pay Law.

“Instead, it says that a ‘market-based’ compensation structure (hereinafter ‘market factors’) explained any pay disparity between Mundell and her male colleagues.”

💡 Acadia tried to justify paying women less by citing market conditions, a rationale the court rejected.

“An employer may not discriminate between employees in the same establishment on the basis of sex by paying wages to any employee in any occupation in this State at a rate less than the rate at which the employer pays any employee of the opposite sex for comparable work on jobs that have comparable requirements relating to skill, effort and responsibility.”

💡 Maine’s law makes paying unequal wages itself the discrimination, regardless of employer intent.

“The district court concluded that this material compelled the following holdings: (1) the MEPL does not impose an intent requirement on a plaintiff, nor does it permit a defendant to rely on a catch-all affirmative defense (i.e., claiming that pay differences are based on ‘any reasonable differentiation except difference in sex’).”

💡 The court ruled that Acadia’s arguments about needing to prove intent and broader defenses failed under Maine law.

“Differentials that are paid pursuant to established seniority systems or merit increase systems or difference in the shift or time of the day worked that do not discriminate on the basis of sex are not within this prohibition.”

💡 Maine law explicitly limits employer defenses to three narrow categories, none of which Acadia could invoke.

“Upon a judgment being rendered in favor of any employee or employees, in any action brought to recover unpaid wages or health benefits under this subchapter, such judgment includes, in addition to the unpaid wages or health benefits adjudged to be due, a reasonable rate of interest, costs of suit including a reasonable attorney’s fee, and an additional amount equal to twice the amount of unpaid wages as liquidated damages.”

💡 Maine law triples unpaid wages for Equal Pay Law violations, making the total penalty $180,955.90.

“The only reasonable construction of the MEPL is that liability attaches with proof that employees of one sex are being paid less than employees of another sex for comparable work in comparable jobs, regardless of intent, unless an employer can demonstrate that the disparity stems from the second sentence’s three listed exceptions.”

💡 The appeals court affirmed that Maine’s law imposes strict liability for gender wage gaps.

“The MEPL explicitly limits affirmative defenses to pay differentials based on seniority, merit, or differences in shift/time of day worked… and refusing to ‘will into existence by judicial fiat a catchall affirmative defense that does not exist in the text of the law.'”

💡 The court would not allow Acadia to invent defenses not written into the statute.

“Mundell is a licensed clinical psychologist who, for two and a half years beginning in 2017, was employed by Acadia.”

💡 Mundell endured systematic underpayment for more than two years before discovering the disparity.

“Although she told Acadia she would work for two weeks after submitting her resignation to transition her patients, Mundell was informed on March 9, 2020, that she should not return to work after finishing the day.”

💡 After Mundell complained, the hospital effectively fired her three days into her notice period.

“Around this time, Acadia independently became aware of several sex pay disparities among hospital employees and began a process to standardize pay across sexes.”

💡 Acadia knew its pay practices were discriminatory beyond just Mundell’s case.

“It has long been established that the FEPA does not require any showing of intent.”

💡 The federal equal pay law, which Maine’s law resembles, also does not require proof of discriminatory intent.

“During a conversation with a fellow pool psychologist, Mundell learned that her male colleagues were paid more than her.”

💡 Wage secrecy kept Mundell unaware of the discrimination until a peer disclosed the information.

“The FEPA uses an ‘equal’ work standard while the MEPL applies to ‘comparable’ work — a more capacious concept.”

💡 Maine law is broader than federal law, covering more types of work and offering stronger protections.