Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—PAY—N.D.N.Y.: EEOC advances EPA claim based on pay disparities between female superintendent and four male comparators, (Feb 24, 2026)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

“In 1963, Congress passed the EPA ‘to legislate out of existence a long-held, but outmoded societal view that a man should be paid more than a woman for the same work.’”

Denying cross-motions for summary judgment on the Equal Pay Act claims brought by the EEOC on behalf of a school district superintendent, whom the agency alleged was paid less than her male predecessors and successors, a federal court in New York found fact disputes as to whether the work they performed required equal skill, effort, and responsibility. Nor was the district entitled to summary judgment on its affirmative defense that the alleged wage disparities were caused by factors other than sex, including longevity, pre-determined pay scales, and individualized bona fide contract negotiations (EEOC v. Hunter-Tannersville Central School District, No. 1:21-CV-352 (AJB/MJK) (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 23, 2026)).

First superintendent. In June 2001, the K-12 public school district’s board of education selected a male building principal to serve as superintendent at a starting salary of $92,540. At that time, he had fewer than 12 years of experience working in education. During his tenure, his contract was amended to modify and add benefits and by the time of his resignation in 2006, he was making $106,084.

Second superintendent. After his retirement, the district selected another male superintendent. He had 24 years of experience in education, including experience working on building projects, and the district was in the beginning phases a major building project at that time. The district ultimately agreed to pay him a starting salary of $110,000. When he left at the end of the 2015-2016 school year, he was making $143,789.

Complainant. The complainant, who had 26 years of experience working in public schools, was selected as the next superintendent at a starting salary of $125,000, which the parties agreed was less than the starting salaries of her two predecessors when adjusted for inflation. During her tenure, she oversaw several capital improvement projects having a combined budget of around $850,000. She also coordinated the district’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Her salary was increased to $128,750 for the 2017-2018 school year and decreased by 2 percent for the 2020-2021 school year. The district also declined her request to buy back unused vacation days.

Fourth superintendent. The complainant was replaced by a male superintendent who had 13 years working in education and, when first considered by the board in 2019, had not yet obtained the required state certification for superintendent. He received a starting salary of $115,000, which was increased to $125,580 for the 2022-2-2023 school year. While serving as superintendent, he developed a $13 million capital improvement project.

Fifth superintendent. The fifth superintendent had approximately 20 years of experience, including prior experience as a superintendent and was paid $160,000 for the 2023-2024 school year.

Wage disparities. Suing on the complainant’s behalf, the EEOC argued the district violated the EPA by paying her less than her two male predecessors and two male successors despite performing substantially equal work. Finding evidence of wage disparities between the complainant and her potential comparators, the court noted that while the parties disputed the exact value of the first superintendent’s starting salary after adjusting for inflation, there was no dispute it would be greater than the complainant’s starting salary of $125,000 in 2016. This, said the court, was also true of the second superintendent’s starting salary.

Further, the court observed, all four of the male superintendents were initially offered benefits such as compensation for unused vacation and sick days, annuity/longevity payments, use of a district-issued phone and computer, life insurance, and disability insurance, that were not offered to the complainant. And while the board offered to reimburse the complainant and two of the male superintendents for moving expenses, it agreed to pay her half of what it agreed to pay the other two. This undisputed evidence, said the court, demonstrated the existence of a wage differential between the complainant and her male comparators.

Equal work. As to whether the complainant and the male superintendents performed equal work, the court found it undisputed that all five held the same job title, possessed the same statutory powers, and were responsible for the same duties. “But ‘a successful EPA claim depends on the comparison of actual job content; broad generalizations drawn from job titles, classifications, or divisions... cannot suffice,” it explained, and here, it found several disputes as to the congruity of the actual job content between the complainant and her male comparators, including whether she and her comparators performed equal work on capital projects.

Specifically, the second superintendent was hired in part due to his experience overseeing building projects and he oversaw the construction of a large capital project during his tenure. The fourth superintendent also supervised the construction phases of a multimillion-dollar capital project. The complainant oversaw three smaller capital projects, with a combined budget of under $1 million during her time as superintendent, and the parties disputed whether her smaller projects required the same effort and skill as the larger projects.

The parties also disputed whether the complainant and second superintendent were required to perform equal work with regard to personnel disciplinary matters as he oversaw the widely publicized discipline and removal of tenured teacher/athletic director and then had to provide guidance to the athletic director’s replacement. In contrast, the complainant oversaw the termination of a nontenured staff member that did not result in a license suspension or removal and did not yield significant media attention.

The parties also disputed whether the complainant and second superintendent dedicated comparable time and effort in mentoring and guiding new administrators and employees. Based on these fact disputes, the court denied cross motions for summary judgment as to the EEOC’s prima facie case.

Factors other than sex. Moving for summary judgment on its affirmative defense, the district argued that the disparity between the second superintendent’s ending salary and the complainant’s starting salary was justified by longevity because, by his final year with the district, he had nine years of experience as superintendent while she had none when she started. Here, said the court, not only might longevity explain that disparity, the fact the district paid the superintendent who followed the complainant a lower starting salary than it paid her also supported the district’s contention that experience played a role in determining the superintendent’s starting salary.

But experience, said the court, did not justify the disparities between her starting salary and the starting salaries of her two predecessors or explain why certain benefits were offered to three of the male superintendents upon hiring, but not her. Moreover, aside from the fifth superintendent, the complainant had the most professional experience and held the most advanced degree upon hiring but her starting salary was lower than her predecessors’ starting salaries and she was denied benefits offered to three of her male comparators. Thus, summary judgment was precluded on the basis of longevity.

Advertised salary ranges. The district next argued that the alleged pay disparity was a result of its advertised salary ranges for the superintendent position. When the second superintendent was hired, the advertised pay scale was $110,000—$125,000 and when the complainant was hired, it was $120,000—$140,000. This justified any wage disparity, it contended, because it was set before the board determined that the second superintendent’s successor would be female. There was evidence, however, that when the board set its salary range for the complainant’s position, it was aware that another woman was a potential candidate to replace the second superintendent, which was sufficient to precludes summary judgment on the district’s defense premised on advertised salary ranges.

Individualized contract negotiations. Finally, the district argued that the wage disparity was the result of “individualized, bona fide contract negotiations.” While it pointed out that it uses a negotiation committee to negotiate contracts and contract amendments, it was unable to explain why it denied the complainant’s proposal to sell back and carry forward unused vacation days. Further, it was undisputed it offered two of the male superintendents benefits it did not offer the complainant. For these reasons, the court denied summary judgment on this basis as well.

The case is No. 1:21-CV-352 (AJB/MJK).

Judge: Brindisi, A.

Attorneys: Caitlin D. Brown, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, for U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Scott P. Quesnel (Girvin & Ferlazzo) for Hunter-Tannersville Central School District.

Companies: Hunter-Tannersville Central School District

Cases: PayDiscrimination Discrimination NewYorkNews GCNNews