EEOC Says One Better-Paid Man Can Prove Equal Pay Act Violation

Paying one man more than one woman for substantially equal work is enough to violate the Equal Pay Act and proof of how the sexes are paid as a group isn’t required, the EEOC said.

Backing two Pennsylvania teachers seeking to have their jury wins upheld, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission told the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit an equal pay plaintiff doesn’t need to show men are paid higher wages as a class than women. Statistics or other proof of of a pattern of sex-based pay disparities in a job category is unnecessary, the agency said, citing the Equal Pay Act’s text, holding by other circuits, and agency guidance.

The issue stands to be key to Central Bucks School District’s bid to overturn a lower court’s $81,000 judgment for Rebecca Cartee-Haring and $84,000 judgment for Dawn Marinello. The Third Circuit hasn’t expressly ruled on the question but “several other courts of appeals have” addressed it. Two held a single better-paid worker of the opposite sex is sufficient to prevail and four others described the Equal Pay Act’s prima facie test as requiring just a lone comparator, the EEOC said in a brief filed Thursday.

The Second Circuit seemed poised to resolve the question in 2023 in a case against the Culinary Institute of America but ultimately decided that appeal on other grounds. The EEOC backed the employee’s view there as well, including during oral argument.

The issue is a recurring one in equal pay suits. The debate centers on how pay bias works and they need for a test that remedies covert or non-explicit discrimination versus the need for flexibility in how workers are paid so businesses can adapt and compete.

The Equal Pay Act’s text shows one better-paid man is sufficient because it “uses ‘employees’ in the plural to describe both the victims and their comparators,” the EEOC told the Third Circuit. Interpreting that language “to require a comparison of a group of employees” would transform the law’s protection “into a class-based provision” and conflict with another Equal Pay Act subsection authorizing suits by “one or more employees,” it said.

The lower court in Cartee-Haring’s and Marinello’s cases, which were consolidated for a second trial and on appeal, got it right in rejecting the school district’s contention that the man they compared themselves to wasn’t truly comparable, the agency said. That he taught social studies and they taught English didn’t mean their work wasn’t substantially equal because they all performed the same core tasks, the EEOC said.

The brief also asked the Third Circuit to confirm that the burden is on the employer to prove a pay disparity is justified by a factor other than sex once a worker established a prima facie case.

EEOC attorneys in Washington represent the commission. Edward S. Mazurek of Yardley, Pa., represents Cartee-Haring and Marinello. Levin Legal Group PC represents the school district.

The cases are Cartee-Haring v. Cent. Bucks Sch. Dist., 3d Cir., No. 25-02540, amicus brief filed 2/5/26 and Marinello v. Cent. Bucks Sch. Dist., 3d Cir., No. 25-02541, amicus brief filed 2/5/26.