Employment Litigation · Primary-source case analysis

Gunther: Title VII Sex-Based Pay Claims Are Not Limited to Equal Work

By Aneeta Mishra and Timothy Chan

Published August 24, 2026

County of Washington v. Gunther involved female jail guards alleging that the county intentionally paid them less than its own job-evaluation study indicated, even though no male guards performed identical work.

The Bennett Amendment incorporated defenses, not a universal equal-work ceiling

Title VII wage claims remain subject to the Equal Pay Act’s affirmative defenses, but the amendment did not erase other forms of intentional sex discrimination in compensation.

A Title VII claim could proceed without an equal male job

The plaintiffs alleged deliberate depression of their wages because of sex, a theory different from an Equal Pay Act comparison between substantially equal jobs.

The Court did not endorse comparable-worth liability

The narrow holding allowed the pleaded intentional-discrimination theory and did not decide whether courts may set wages based on broad comparisons among dissimilar jobs.

The employer retained its defenses

The plaintiffs still had to prove intentional discrimination, while the county could establish a seniority, merit, production, or other factor-without-sex defense where supported.

Key takeaways

• Preserve compensation studies and decision records.
• Separate Title VII intent from Equal Pay Act equal-work proof.
• Identify each asserted nondiscriminatory pay factor.
• Avoid overstating the decision as a general comparable-worth rule.