contrast to the statutes at issue in Kimel, Florida Prepaid, and Erickson, the Equal Pay Act is not aimed at a kind of discrimination (like age or disability) that receives rational basis review. Under the Constitution, gender-based classifications are afforded heightened scrutiny. See J.E.B. v. Alabama, 511 U.S. 127, 136, 114 S.Ct. 1419, 128 L.Ed.2d 89 (1994). Once an individual is able to establish the existence of a gender-based distinction, “[plarties who seek to defend gender-based government action must demonstrate an ‘exceedingly persuasive justification’ for that action.” United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 531, 116 S.Ct. 2264, 135 L.Ed.2d 735 (1996) (citation omitted); see also Mississippi Univ. for Women v. Hogan, 458 U.S. 718, 724, 102 S.Ct. 3331, 73 L.Ed.2d 1090 (1982) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotations omitted). In many ways,
holding that a gender classification must serve important governmental objectives and that the discriminatory means employed must be substantially related to the achievement of those objectives holding that these  fundamental  decisions relate to the objectives of the representation that a client must make and an attorney must abide by recognizing an intermediate level of scrutiny in which the governmental objective must be important and the challenged law must be substantially related to that objective holding plaintiff must be closely related to victim holding that the evidence must be sufficient to support the agencys findings of fact and that the agencys inferences from those facts must be reasonable