The Supreme Judicial Court has allowed a case to proceed in which a Massachusetts state police lieutenant says the state police discriminated against him by denying him a transfer to a unit known for its high overtime pay.

Warren Yee, a lieutenant with the state police, was born in Hong Kong, immigrated to the U.S. and became a citizen. He identifies as a Chinese Asian-American.

Yee said the state police would not approve a job transfer, which would have given him a greater opportunity to earn overtime pay and accept paid details, because of his age and ethnic background.

Yee started working for the Massachusetts District Commission in 1980, an agency that merged with the state police in 1992. Since 2005, he has worked as a lieutenant shift commander at the headquarters of State Police Troop H in South Boston.

In 2008, Yee requested a transfer to Troop F at Logan Airport, because he knew there were better opportunities for overtime and paid details. He continued to make his interest in a transfer known to his superiors. Yee told his superiors he thought he could be helpful at the airport because he speaks Chinese.

Troop F came under scrutiny last year after it was revealed that the troop had not made its payroll records public through the state comptroller, as all state agencies and police troops are required to do.

The Boston Globe reported that Troop F had some of the highest overtime earners in the state. The Globe report found that 54 Troop F officers earned more than $200,000 the previous year, and a number of troopers earned more than $100,000 in overtime pay.

According to the SJC ruling, there is no written policy governing transfer requests by lieutenants. It is up to the troop commander to nominate a candidate for an open position, and the state police superintendent decides whether to approve the nomination.

Between the time Yee first made his request in 2008 through September 2012, the state police transferred or promoted seven troopers to Troop F in the position of lieutenant. All seven were white males, and five were younger than Yee when they were transferred.

Yee then sent a letter to police officials complaining of discrimination. After he sent the letter, three other lieutenants were transferred to Troop F, all white men.

One lieutenant who was transferred from Troop H to Troop F earned an additional $30,000 a year in overtime and detail pay after the transfer. His pay dropped when he returned to Troop H.

The state police argued that there was no “adverse employment action” taken against Yee, and no discrimination.

A superior court judge ruled in favor of the state police, finding that Yee’s request was for a lateral transfer, not a promotion, since the job had the same base pay and benefits. So denying his request could not be considered an “adverse employment action,” which is required for something to be deemed discrimination.

The SJC, in a decision written by Chief Justice Ralph Gants, found that denying Yee a transfer could be considered an “adverse employment action,” because even though Troop F offers the same base pay, that job would have given Yee the opportunity to earn more money through overtime and paid details.

“We thus conclude that where an employee can show that there are material differences between two positions in the opportunity for compensation, or in the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, the failure to grant a lateral transfer to the preferred position may constitute an adverse employment action,” Gants wrote.

Gants concluded that the ability to earn more overtime pay and paid details can make a position objectively more desirable.

The SJC did not rule on whether the state police actually discriminated against Yee, but sent the case back to the superior court to decide that question.