Phyllis filed various Massachusetts and Federal sex discrimination claims, one of which was unequal pay pursuant the Massachusetts Equal Pay Act. The court first looked at common and important characteristics of Phyllis's job and the jobs of males receiving higher pay to determine if the jobs were substantively similar. Both jobs included research and making scientific contributions to the overall area of oral health. However, her employer argued that while Phyllis's position required her to obtain outside grants, the positions to which she was compared did not have that same requirement. The court next looked to see if the jobs required comparable skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions. Both jobs had similar comparable working environments of a research laboratory with the common responsibility of working on grant awards. However, the positions involved different areas of research at different levels of effort. The court decided that Phyllis had produced enough evidence that her job had substantial similarities and required comparable skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions to send her case to a jury. She met her burden of proof.