An Ohio computer programmer was one of three colleagues at the same level, but the other two were males. She complained several times to managers and HR that there was no reason the men should be paid over 20 percent more than she earned. But her complaints were consistently ignored. Finally, she sued.

What happened. Wendy Vehar had a 4-year college degree, nearly 7 years' experience as a programmer, and some new training when she was hired at Cole Vision Corporation's Twinsburg office. She joined in February 2001 as a data analyst, a position for which she and her supervisor agreed she was overqualified. Cole owns nearly 1,900 vision centers, operating under such names as Pearle Vision or Sears, Target, and BJ's Optical.

Vehar's work involved designing programs for use in those stores, and even her male co-workers agreed that she excelled at it. Between November 2002 and November 2004, Vehar wrote more than 36 percent of Pearle retail systems development changes, while her male co-workers were responsible for 34 percent and 26 percent, respectively.

Nevertheless, her highest salary during her tenure, and after several promotions at Cole, was $51,709. And, when she was earning $46,460, her co-workers were paid $73,733 and $67,308, respectively. When she asked for a raise, her boss told her to be patient. Her co-workers, meanwhile, had lacked college degrees when they were hired. But when she finally sued with several charges including sex discrimination, Cole said the men earned more because they had more experience (though only a year or two).

A federal district court judge accepted that argument and dismissed Vehar's suit. She appealed to the 6th Circuit, which covers Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan, and Tennessee.

What the court said. Vehar complained not only of unequal pay but of what looked like favoritism toward the two men in office and social behavior, as well as hostility to her after her complaints. Despite her superior performance, their supervisor allegedly called the two men "smart guys" and her "data b****," and he sometimes forwarded sexist jokes. Appellate judges noted that the job requirements for the three suggested that a degree could substitute for as many as 9 or 10 years' experience but that Vehar's degree was apparently never taken into account. They ruled that the three jobs were so similar that, with the occasional sexist behavior, Vehar's case should be heard by a jury. Vehar v. Cole Vision Corporation, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, No. 06-4542, unpublished (2007).

Point to remember: Match candidates to job requirements--or thoroughly document why you did not.