Earlier quoted context omitted.
"We know this from explicit records, with Lilly Ledbetter being one example." I'm not tremendously familiar with this case, but according to the gods of wikipedia, the evidence for discrimination consisted of nothing but evidence of difference. Same old same old.
"It is unfair, however, to give no guidelines of what you think might be acceptable." If you do not accept a jury's decision that there was pay discrimination on the basis of sex, then you have ridiculously high bar that precludes effectively all evidence.
The same court decision that was thrown out by the SCOTUS? The same jury that used the 51% "more likely than not" standard to assume that the difference in pay was due to discrimination, there being no actual clear evidence?
That one?