EEOC Clarifies Equal Pay Act Standard in Recent Cases

A recent Equal Pay Act case underscores an important reminder for employers: pay equity risk can exist even when it is alleged that only one employee is paid more than a colleague of the opposite sex for substantially equal work. In Marinello v. Central Bucks School District, pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed an amicus brief clarifying how Equal Pay Act claims are evaluated.

In its filing, the EEOC explained that to establish a basic, or prima facie, claim under the Equal Pay Act, a plaintiff does not need to present statistical evidence or show a broad pattern of pay disparities across a job category. Instead, the legal standard can be met by demonstrating that a single employee of the opposite sex was paid more for substantially equal work. The focus is on the comparison itself, not on whether a larger group of employees experienced similar disparities.

The EEOC also emphasized that the Equal Pay Act does not require jobs to be identical. Differences in job titles or specific subject matter do not automatically disqualify a comparison. What matters is whether the roles involve substantially equal skill, effort, and responsibility and are performed under similar working conditions. In these cases, the EEOC rejected arguments that comparators were invalid simply because they taught different subjects, reinforcing that substance, not labels, drives the analysis.

For employers, the message is clear: Even one unexplained pay difference can create legal risk if it is not based on lawful, job-related factors. Regular pay audits and data-driven reviews help identify gaps early, document legitimate pay decisions, and address issues before they become legal claims.