To prove a prima facie case under the Equal Pay Act (29 USC 206(d)), the plaintiff need only show that men were paid more for substantially equal work. In making that comparison it is the overall job, not its individual segmnents that is to be considered. Here, the male professors of psychology were paid more than plaintiff for essentially the same sorts of tasks, although the court concluded that whether the jobs were substantially equal presented a jury question, thus reversing the summary judgment for defendant. Plaintiff also raised a triable issue as to a disparate impact violation of Title VII in the defendant’s giving retention raises to some faculty members s without also increasing the salaries of other professors of comparable merit and seniority. The policy impacts women disparately because they are less likely to move and so demand retention bonuses to stay. Though the small size of the sample that plaintiff’s expert drew on to reach the disparate impact conclusion did affect the probative value of the expert’s opinion, a reasonable jury could rely on it.